Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
MIS2003-00021
vis200 _ ()" 2 1 I I • EXHIBIT A- A CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL Case Name: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD (CHAPTER 18.780) Case Numbers: MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003-00021 MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003-00022 Appellant's Name: Media Art, Inc. Appellant's Address: 1923 Broadway Street Vancouver, WA 98663 Address of Property: Citywide Tax Map/Lot Nos.: N/A A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING MEDIA ART'S APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 18.780(RESOLUTION NO.03-27). THE CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE APPELLANTS APPEAL MATERIALS AND THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPEAL DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE CITY COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 10, 2003 AND JULY 8, 2003 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPEAL. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Item on Appeal: On April 13, 1993, the Tigard City Council, by majority vote, agreed to prohibit billboard signs in the Tigard city limits, and to remove the approval criteria for billboard signs from the Special Condition Signs section of then TDC Section 18.114.090. Earlier this year, West Coast Media, LLC, and later Media Arts, Inc. applied for building permit approval to construct "freeway oriented" signs under the premise that if they received approval from ODOT and pursuant to the Oregon Motorists Information Act (OMIA) they would not be subject to separate review from the City of Tigard. City planning staff recommended to the Building Official that the building permits for the signs be denied after finding that the signs that were applied for exceeded the maximum allowable size and height for"freeway oriented" signs, and that in fact, the signs that were applied for appeared to be billboards. The Building Official denied approval of the permits, and the two companies filed appeals with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeals were based on language in Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.780. Staff requested that the language be clarified by the Community Development Director. On May 16, 2003, the Community Development Director issued his interpretation, and the City Manager appealed the decision to Council seeking affirmation. A separate appeal was filed on behalf of Media Arts, Inc. by Michelle Rudd of Stoel Rives LLP. The Director's decision is partly based on Ordinance 93-12 that was passed by the City Council in April of 1993 to prohibit Billboards in the City of Tigard. Action: > Affirmed the Community Development Director's Interpretation & Denied Media Art, Inc.'s Appeal. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to the Appellants and their Attorneys. Final Decision: THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 8, 2003. :I The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at (503)639-4171. • • Attachment 2 CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03 aZ A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.780. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director is charged with making interpretations based on the best available information for any ambiguities or words having multiple meaning in the Tigard Development Code;and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's Interpretation is supported by past Planning Commission and City Council actions to expressly prohibit billboards in Tigard;and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council passed Ordinance 93-12 to expressly prohibit billboards in the City of Tigard;and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the matter on June 10,2003, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby expresses its affirmation that the.interpretation(Exhibit A) made by the Community Development Director is in keeping with the intention of the Tigard City Council and the purpose of the Tigard sign regulations of the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.780. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. 1 PASSED: This ' day of 2003. ► a •r-Cl //'igard ATTEST: ity Recorder-City of'rig' • ( RESOLUTION NO.03 - a 7 Page 1 • • • Exhibit A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARDS TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC 18.780.090.E.6 I. INTRODUCTION This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development Code regarding signs. II. INTERPRETATIONS A. TMC 18.760.015.A.8, 18.780.015.A.9 and 18.780.070.M Code Language TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure. TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a billboard TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards. Billboards are prohibited." Interpretation As applied to freeway-oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway-oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Discussion The two definitions (of"billboard" and "billboard structure") are circular and provide little guidance as to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions are not very helpful. For example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel designed to carry outdoor advertising." This definition does not provide much detail but is in accord with the common conception of a billboard as a very large sign. TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were prohibited,they were allowed only in certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway 217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93-12). However, it is clear that when the Council prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway-oriented signs because freestanding freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain standards. TMC 18.780.090.E. Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign and that the Council's obvious intent as to freeway-oriented signs was to prohibit certain signs while allowing others, it appears that the Council intended the term "billboard" in the context of freeway oriented signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum size allowed for a freeway-oriented sign. The normal maximum area for a freeway-oriented sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square feet for a two-sided sign. TMC 18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the applicable review criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign area. TMC 18.780.140.A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a freeway-oriented sign that does not exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through the adjustment process and would not be a billboard. In the context of freeway-oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Page 1 of 4 • • B. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 Code Language TMC 18.780.090.E.1 Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) need not seek separate approval from the City of Tigard. Interpretation The "separate approval" provision of TMC 18.780.090.E.1 distinguishes the City's sign permit process set out in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18 from the state permitting process, which includes a requirement to obtain an affidavit from the City. ORS 337.723. A person qualifies for an OMIA permit only if that person has obtained an affidavit from the City that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations and the state determines that the other OMIA standards are satisfied. If a person has not obtained an ORS 337.723 affidavit that the City standards have been met, the person has not "qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." To demonstrate that a person has qualified for an OMIA permit, the person must provide evidence the OMIA permit has been issued for the location in question: This section does not exempt a person from obtaining building permits, only from obtaining the sign permit required under Chapter 18.780. Under the building code, the building official is to deny permits for failure to meet building code standards or other applicable laws and ordinances. The City's prohibition on billboards is an applicable law or ordinance preventing issuance of building permits for billboards. Discussion This provision is ambiguous because it does not clearly define what "qualifying for a permit" means. The provision could be interpreted to mean that the City should make an independent evaluation in each case whether a person meets all the qualifications for a permit from the State under the Oregon Motorist Information Act. This interpretation is unacceptable and unreasonable because it would have the City make an independent evaluation of a decision that only the Oregon Department of Transportation has authority to make. See ORS 377.725. That interpretation could result in an avoidance of the City process in cases in which the state denies the OMIA permit. This is clearly not what the Council intended in passing this provision. It could also be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to seek separate City approval if the person has obtained an OMIA permit for a location in the City. This is a reasonable and acceptable interpretation of the code provision. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 must be read in context of the OMIA. A person can qualify for an OMIA permit only if that person obtains an affidavit from the City that the sign is permitted under the City codes. ORS 337.723. The provision that a person need not obtain a "separate approval" from the City makes sense when interpreted in light of the provision in ORS 337.723, which includes the City as part of the OMIA process. If the City issues an affidavit certifying compliance under ORS 337.723, it will have verified that the applicant meets City standards, and a second City process would be superfluous. However, if no affidavit certifying compliance is issued, then the City would not have determined whether its code has been complied with and a separate City process is needed. The intent of the provision is to avoid two separate City processes for a single sign, while requiring at least one City process to determine whether a sign complies with City standards. Therefore, TMC 18.780.090.E.1 should be interpreted as meaning that a person may avoid obtaining a City permit (the "separate approval") if the person has obtained an affidavit from the City under ORS 337.723 stating that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations. If a person has not obtained the ORS 337.723 affidavit indicating compliance, the person has not "qualifie[d]for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." If a person does obtain an affidavit from the City verifying compliance, the person could proceed with the billboard construction only if the person satisfies the state that all other OMIA permit requirements are met. The only way for the City to determine compliance with other OMIA standards is by verifying whether an OMIA permit has been issued. A person seeking to avoid the City permit process must provide evidence that the OMIA permit has been issued. Page 2 of 4 • • If a person has received an OMIA permit for another location, the person has not qualified for a permit for an OMIA permit for a location in the City until the person either obtains a City permit or an affidavit of compliance from the City under ORS 337.723. Furthermore, the only exemption provided for by this section is an exemption from the City's sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. A building permit, if otherwise required, still must be obtained. TMC 18.780.010.E.1 is in the context of the sign permit regulations in the Community Development Code. It is clear from the context that the "separate approval" refers to a sign permit, not a building permit. Indeed, the City does not have authority to state that a building permit is not required if state law requires a building permit, which it does for most sign structures. The building official cannot approve a building permit unless the application conforms to the requirements of the building code "and other pertinent laws or ordinances." OSSC (UBC) 106.4.1 The prohibition on billboards imposed by TMC 18.780.010.E.1 discussed in this interpretation is a "pertinent law" that prevents the issuance of a building permit for billboards. C. TMC 18.780.090.E.6 Code Provision TMC 18.780.090.E.6 For freestanding signs, a total maximum sign area of 160 square feet per fact (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard, then the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090 shall apply. Interpretation The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is interpreted to mean that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above) are not permitted. Discussion The first sentence of this section is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence is confusing and ambiguous. That sentence states that if a sign is a billboard, the provisions of subsection 18.780.090 apply. This statement is ambiguous for two reasons. Most importantly, any reference to standards being applicable to billboards is confusing, given the express prohibitions on billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. Second, there may be some possible ambiguity as to whether the "provisions of Subsection 18.780.090" includes the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. Dealing with the second possible area of ambiguity, the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 is one of the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090. There is no language in the second sentence that would exclude the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 from being applicable. It would have been easy to include an express provision stating that the first sentence did not apply to billboards, or to add the word "but" between the two sentences. The Council in adopting the provision did not do that. To interpret the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 in a way that would make the first sentence not applicable to billboards would be to insert a provision that is not there. The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 should therefore be interpreted as making the size limitation of the first sentence of that subsection applicable to billboards. In interpreting this provision, it should be noted that the code definition of billboard -a sign supported by a billboard structure- applies to this provision. The apparent intent was therefore that any sign that had a billboard structure could not exceed the other requirements of freeway-oriented signs, including the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. The best interpretation of the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is therefore that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above), are not permitted. Page 3 of 4 • This interpretation also resolves the possible inconsistency with prohibition on all billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. As properly interpreted, TMC 18.780.090.E_6 prohibits all signs greater than a certain size, including those that are supported by a billboard structure. Given the interpretation of"billboard" discussed in Section A above, the structure of a smaller sign would not be a"billboard structure" because it would be for a sign that is smaller than a billboard and the prohibition on billboards would not apply. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between TMC 18.780.090.E.6 and TMC 18.780.070.M because TMC 18.780.090.E.6 does not allow any billboards prohibited by TMC 18.780.070.M. III_ APPLICATION OF THIS INTERPRETATION This interpretation applies in all situations in which the code sections discussed in this interpretation are applicable. Because this is an interpretation and not a regulation, it is to be applied by all City staff in all situations, even as to applications that have been filed. IV. FINALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the.City Council pursuant to TMC 18.340.020.E and F. % (1ent Director DATE:0 5 /6/o 3 _ ._ page 4 of 4 • • • • West Coast Media, LLC M-1502003-000A/ EXHIBITJL Attn: Chris Carlile I:\curpin\setup\labels\billboard interpretation appeal for 6-10-03 4888 NW Bethany Blvd., Suite K-5 #354 "NOTICE hearing.doc FINAL y ""N NOTTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL" Portland, OR 97229 Brian D. Chenoweth Rycewicz & Chenoweth, LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1940 Portland, OR 97204-3154 • • • U.S. Postal Service,. m CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT r- (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.corna -n ATTN: Patty/Planning L 0 FILE: MI32003-00021 USE Postage '$•E',11: .h;a'0 m Certified Fte�B� O d Postmark Return Reclept Fete Here (Endorsement Required); 0 Fee ,Restricted Delivery rl (Endorsement Required)'-?r f J;,• ru Total Postage&Fees RJ ru Sent To , — Brian D. Chenoweth • N -StreeoRycewicz & Chenoweth, LLP orP0B601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1940.____. City,Stt Portland OR 97204-3154 PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions l l , SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. '!nature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. / R}Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X r \' ' ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Rec ived by(Pri ted ame) C. Date of Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, /h et n34a. or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No Brian D. Chenoweth JUL 1 a • Rycewicz& Chenoweth, LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1940 3. Service Type Portland, OR 97204-3154 R4 Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail i ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number 7002 2410 0003 7046 0743 (Transfer from service Labe° PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 I 171,11181tj74(111117'i i Fr it tt F Ii r •+•�+ • -w•- - _ 6ZZL6 NO `PUelJod t'5£# g->i a}ins 'TAM ALP-NM]] MN 888t' 4� alllae3 sugO :u31v �, a #7149py C21 N, r.. 19E2.0 -i`5.e6. 000 OTh2 2002 011 `elpaw lseo3 Isom i F fi i W i Wl7I6!GV tR1ll111.3J. : 3Nr10311o011/010A'SS31:100V Ntl0131:1 3H1 dO 1HOIb 3H1013dO13AN3 dO dO11V 113x011S 3OVld £ZZL6 week)'PAD611 J. pn18 IIOH 'M'S 9ZLSL aye!' AO Jl110' SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: West Coast Media, LLC Attn: Chris Carlile 4888 NW Bethany Blvd., Suite K-5#354 Portland, OR 97229 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X B. Received by(Printed Name) ❑Agent ❑Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No 3. Service Type M Certified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑Express Mail ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7002 2410 0003 7046 0736 I PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community CITY OF TIGARD Washington County, Oregon NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER BY THE CITY COUNCIL Case Name: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD (CHAPTER 18.780) Case Numbers: MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003-00021 MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003-00022 Appellant's Name: Media Art, Inc. Appellant's Address: 1923 Broadway Street Vancouver, WA 98663 Address of Property: Citywide Tax Map/Lot Nos.: N/A A FINAL ORDER INCORPORATING THE FACTS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING MEDIA ART'S APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER 18.780(RESOLUTION NO.03-27). THE CITY OF TIGARD CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL MATERIALS AND THE PLANNING DIVISION'S STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPEAL DESCRIBED IN FURTHER DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE CITY COUNCIL HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 10, 2003 AND JULY 8, 2003 TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS APPEAL. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN BASED ON THE FACTS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FINAL ORDER. Item on Appeal: On April 13, 1993, the Tigard City Council, by majority vote, agreed to prohibit billboard signs in the Tigard city limits, and to remove the approval criteria for billboard signs from the Special Condition Signs section of then TDC Section 18.114.090. Earlier this year, West Coast Media, LLC, and later Media Arts, Inc. applied for building permit approval to construct "freeway oriented" signs under the premise that if they received approval from ODOT and pursuant to the Oregon Motorists Information Act (OMIA) they would not be subject to separate review from the City of Tigard. City planning staff recommended to the Building Official that the building permits for the signs be denied after finding that the signs that were applied for exceeded the maximum allowable size and height for "freeway oriented" signs, and that in fact, the signs that were applied for appeared to be billboards. The Building Official denied approval of the permits, and the two companies filed appeals with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeals were based on language in Tigard Development Code, Chapter 18.780. Staff requested that the language be clarified by the Community Development Director. On May 16, 2003, the Community Development Director issued his interpretation, and the City Manager appealed the decision to Council seeking affirmation. A separate appeal was filed on behalf of Media Arts, Inc. by Michelle Rudd of Stoel Rives LLP. The Director's decision is partly based on Ordinance 93-12 that was passed by the City Council in April of 1993 to prohibit Billboards in the City of Tigard. Action: > Affirmed the Community Development Director's Interpretation & Denied Media Art, Inc.'s Appeal. Notice: Notice was published in the newspaper and mailed to the Appellants and their Attorneys. Final Decision: THIS IS THE FINAL DECISION OF THE CITY AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON JULY 8, 2003. The adopted findings of fact, decision and statement of conditions can be obtained from the City of Tigard Planning Division, Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. Appeal: A review of this decision may be obtained by filing a notice of intent with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) according to their procedures. Questions: If you have any questions, please call the City of Tigard Planning Division at(503) 639-4171. r Attachment 2 CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03 a'1 A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.780. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director is charged with making interpretations based on the best available information for any ambiguities or words having multiple meaning in the Tigard Development Code;and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's Interpretation is supported by past Planning Commission and City Council actions to expressly prohibit billboards in Tigard;and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council passed Ordinance 93-12 to expressly prohibit billboards in the City of Tigard;and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the matter on June 10,2003, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby expresses its atfiumation that the.interpretation(Exhibit A) made by the Community Development Director is in keeping with the intention of the Tigard City Council and the purpose of the Tigard sign regulations of the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.780. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This r, day of 2003. k a r-CI " ► ' iward ATTEST: • ity Recorder-City ofTig. • • t RESOLUTION NO.03_- a 7 Page 1 Exhibit A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARDS TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC 18.780.090.E.6 I. INTRODUCTION This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development Code regarding signs. II. INTERPRETATIONS A. TMC 18.780.015.A.8, 18.780.015.A.9 and 18.780.070.M Code Language TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure. TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a billboard TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards; Billboards are prohibited." Interpretation As applied to freeway-oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway-oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Discussion The two definitions (of"billboard" and "billboard structure") are circular and provide little guidance as to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions are not very helpful. For example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel designed to carry outdoor advertising." This definition does not provide much detail but is in accord with the common conception of a billboard as a very large sign. TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were prohibited, they were allowed only in certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway 217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93-12). However, it is clear that when the Council prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway-oriented signs because freestanding freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain standards. TMC 18.780.090.E. Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign and that the Council's obvious intent as to freeway-oriented signs was to prohibit certain signs while allowing others, it appears that the Council intended the term "billboard"in the context of freeway oriented signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum size allowed for a freeway-oriented sign. The normal maximum area for a freeway-oriented sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square feet for a two-sided sign. TMC 18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the applicable review criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign area. TMC 18.780.140.A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a freeway-oriented sign that does not exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through the adjustment process and would not be a billboard. In the context of freeway-oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Page 1 of 4 B. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 Code Language TMC 18.780.090.E.1 Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) need not seek separate approval from the City of Tigard. Interpretation The "separate approval" provision of TMC 18.780.090.E.1 distinguishes the City's sign permit process set out in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18 from the state permitting process, which includes a requirement to obtain an affidavit from the City. ORS 337.723. A person qualifies for an OMIA permit only if that person has obtained an affidavit from the City that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations and the state determines that the other OMIA standards are satisfied. If a person has not obtained an ORS 337.723 affidavit that the City standards have been met, the person has not"qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." To demonstrate that a person has qualified for an OMIA permit, the person must provide evidence the OMIA permit has been issued for the location in question: This section does not exempt a person from obtaining building permits, only from obtaining,the sign permit required under Chapter 18.780. Under the building code, the building official is to deny permits for failure to meet building code standards or other applicable laws and ordinances. The City's prohibition on billboards is an applicable law or ordinance preventing issuance of building permits for billboards. Discussion This provision is ambiguous because it does not clearly define what "qualifying for a permit" means. The provision could be interpreted to mean that the City should make an independent evaluation in each case whether a person meets all the qualifications for a permit from the State under the Oregon Motorist Information Act. This interpretation is unacceptable and unreasonable because it would have the City make an independent evaluation of a decision that only the Oregon Department of Transportation has authority to make. See ORS 377.725. That interpretation could result in an avoidance of the City process in cases in which the state denies the OMIA permit. This is clearly not what the Council intended in passing this provision. It could also be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to seek separate City approval if the person has obtained an OMIA permit for a location in the City. This is a reasonable and acceptable interpretation of the code provision. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 must be read in context of the OMIA. A person can qualify for an OMIA permit only if that person obtains an affidavit from the City that the sign is permitted under the City codes. ORS 337.723. The provision that a person need not obtain a "separate approval" from the City makes sense when interpreted in light of the provision in ORS 337.723, which includes the City as part of the OMIA process. If the City issues an affidavit certifying.compliance under ORS 337.723, it will have verified that the applicant meets City standards, and a second City process would be superfluous. However, if no affidavit certifying compliance is issued, then the City would not have determined whether its code has been complied with and a separate City process is needed. The intent of the provision is to avoid two separate City processes for a single sign, while requiring at least one City process to determine whether a sign complies with City standards. Therefore, TMC 18.780.090.E.1 should be interpreted as meaning that a person may avoid obtaining a City permit (the "separate approval") if the person has obtained an affidavit from the City under ORS 337.723 stating that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations. If a person has not obtained the ORS 337.723 affidavit indicating compliance, the person has not "qualifie[d]for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." If a person does obtain an affidavit from the City verifying compliance, the person could proceed with the billboard construction only if the person satisfies the state that all other OMIA permit requirements are met. The only way for the City to determine compliance with other OMIA standards is by verifying whether an OMIA permit has been issued. A person seeking to avoid the City permit process must provide evidence that the OMIA permit has been issued. Page 2 of 4 . ti If a person has received an OMIA permit for another location, the person has not qualified for a permit for an OMIA permit for a location in the City until the person either obtains a City permit or an affidavit of compliance from the City under ORS 337.723. Furthermore, the only exemption provided for by this section is an exemption from the City's sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. A building permit, if otherwise required, still must be obtained. TMC 18.780.010.E.1 is in the context of the sign permit regulations in the Community Development Code. It is clear from the context that the "separate approval" refers to a sign permit, not a building permit. Indeed, the City does not have authority to state that a building permit is not required if state law requires a building permit, which it does for most sign structures. The building official cannot approve a building permit unless the application conforms to the requirements of the building code "and other pertinent laws or ordinances." OSSC (UBC) 106.4.1 The prohibition on billboards imposed by TMC 18.780.010.E.1 discussed in this interpretation is a "pertinent law"that prevents the issuance of a building permit for billboards. C. TMC 18.780.090.E.6 Code Provision TMC 18.780.090.E.6 For freestanding signs, a total maximum sign area of 160 square feet per fact (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard, then the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090 shall apply. Interpretation The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is interpreted to mean that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above) are not permitted. Discussion The first sentence of this section is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence is confusing and ambiguous. That sentence states that if a sign is a billboard, the provisions of subsection 18.780.090 apply. This statement is ambiguous for two reasons. Most importantly, any reference to standards being applicable to billboards is confusing, given the express prohibitions on billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. Second, there may be some possible ambiguity as to whether the "provisions of Subsection 18.780.090" includes the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. Dealing with the second possible area of ambiguity, the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 is one of the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090. There is no language in the second sentence that would exclude the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 from being applicable. It would have been easy to include an express provision stating that the first sentence did not apply to billboards, or to add the word "but" between the two sentences. The Council in adopting the provision did not do that. To interpret the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 in a way that would make the first sentence not applicable to billboards would be to insert a provision that is not there. The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 should therefore be interpreted as making the size limitation of the first sentence of that subsection applicable to billboards. In interpreting this provision, it should be noted that the code definition Of billboard -a sign supported by a billboard structure- applies to this provision. The apparent intent was therefore that any sign that had a billboard structure could not exceed the other requirements of freeway-oriented signs, including the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. The best interpretation of the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is therefore that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above), are not permitted. Page 3 of 4 This interpretation also resolves the possible inconsistency with prohibition on all billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. As properly interpreted, TMC 18.780.090.E_6 prohibits all signs greater than a certain size, including those that are supported by a billboard structure. Given the interpretation of`billboard" discussed in Section A above, the structure of a smaller sign would not be a-billboard structure" because it would be for a sign that is smaller than a billboard and the prohibition on billboards would not apply. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between TMC 18.780.090.E_6 and TMC . 18.780.070.M because TMC 18.780.090.E_6 does not allow any billboards prohibited by TMC 18.780.070.M. III. APPLICATION OF THIS INTERPRETATION This interpretation applies in all situations in which the code sections discussed in this interpretation are applicable. Because this is an interpretation and not a regulation, it is to be applied by all City staff in all situations, even as to applications that have been filed. IV. FINALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the-City Council pursuant to TMC 18.340.020.E and F. 4 A A, "--":1 antes • e ryx,Community dtoornerit Director DATE:0 S /6/o 3 • ----+......__ .. page 4 of 4 • •--r . i . . U.S. Postal Service,. - m CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT N (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) o For de' • . ..: ".. " " . ebsite at www.usps.corno FI EN MISZ 013-00021 L s rte'' i C;.4 t` Postage $ m Certified Fee , . Y 0 Return Reciept Fee )' PostmReturn(Endorsement Required) �� Here CI 9` O Restricted Delivery Fee s ,-q (Endorsement Required) "4*• S r1J Total Postage&Fees MUM f1J o Sent To West Coast Media, LLC N -gtreet,A4 Attn: Chris Carlile °rPOBo: 4888 NW Bethany Blvd., Suite K-5#354. crry,stag Portland, OR 97229 PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions . • • At. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping Better Community I, Patricia L. Lu ord being first duly sworn/affirm, on oath depose and say that I am a Senior Administrative Specialist for the City of 1igar Washington County, Oregon and that I served the following: (Check Appropriate Box(s)Below) © NOTICE OF FINAL ORDER FOR: MIS2003-00021 — BILLBOARD SIGNS APPEAL AMENDED NOTICE (File NoiName Reference) HEARING BODY: HEARING DATE: ❑ City of Tigard Planning Director ❑ Tigard Hearings Officer ❑ Tigard Planning Commission El Tigard City Council (June 10, 2003 and July 8, 2003) A copy of the said notice being hereto attached, marked Exhibit"A",and by reference made a part hereof, was mailed to each named person(s) at the address(s) shown on the attached list(s), marked Exhibit"B",and by reference made a part hereof, on July 15,2003,and deposited in the United States Mail on 1U11115,2003, postage prepaid. �" (�"� :t Pr pa -- l otice/ STATE OE OREGON ) County of Washington )ss. City of'igard ) Subscribed and sworn/affirmed before me on the 7 day of S-6 , 2003. OFFICIAL SEAL GREER A GASTON NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON SREOON COMMMISSION N NO N0..371908 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT.10,2003 N Y PUBLIC OF OREGON My Commission Expires: /O 1 0 -DO • • reviewing. Councilor Sherwood noted her appreciation for the cooperative spirit from the business community in working toward a compromise proposal for a street maintenance fee. The new proposal links rates charged to the long-term city work program for street maintenance and is for street maintenance only. This item is scheduled for Council review on August 12, 2003. 6. CONTINUATION FROM JUNE 10, 2003 — PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI- JUDICIAL) — APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.780 a. Mayor Griffith announced this public hearing was being continued from June 10, 2003. Declarations or challenges: The Mayor read the following: Do any members of Council wish to report any ex parte contact or information gained outside the hearing including any site visits? Have all members familiarized themselves with the application? Are there any challenges from the audience pertaining to the Council's jurisdiction to hear this matter or is there a challenge on the participation of any member of the Council? No declarations were made by the ,Council members and there were no challenges. b. Community Development Director summarized this agenda item as outlined in the Council meeting materials. At the last meeting, additional materials were submitted on behalf of the appellant. The City Attorney has reviewed this information and prepared a response, which was submitted to the Council in their meeting materials. d. Public testimony: Mayor Griffith announced that for all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described by staff or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe to apply to the decision. • Michelle Rudd, Stoel Rives LLP, 900 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2600, Portland, OR 97204, testified as legal counsel in favor of Media Art's Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 8, 2003 Page 5 • • appeal. Ms. Rudd distributed additional materials to the City Council. She disagreed that the Council's intent was to disallow billboards. She also referenced a pending records request. Because of the substantial amount of material distributed to the Council for review, the meeting recessed at 8:01 p.m. to allow time for Council and legal counsel to review this information. The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m. e. Discussion Discussion resumed on this item, and City Attorney Crew advised the issue noted with regard to the public records request is not new, although a US Supreme Court case was cited which he had not reviewed. Council continued with the hearing process after a brief discussion among staff and the city attorney about whether the public records request needed to be resolved. Legal Council Crew advised this is a "policy call" by City Council. Planning Manager Bewersdorff advised he was on staff at the time the Council proposed the language under appeal; he advised the intent of the Council at the time was clear and they were concerned about billboards — the intent in 1992 was to outlaw the installation of billboards. No applications for billboards have been approved since that time. Council returned to the issue of the public records request. Legal Counsel Crew advised that there was nothing in the records request that would change the interpretation. The issue before the Council is to interpret the section of code under appeal. Community Development Director Hendryx referred to the City Attorney's memorandum and noted staff was recommending that the following wording be amended as proposed by the City Attorney: (Page 3 of the Attorney's June 25, 2003 memorandum) "...adding 'for the location in question' after 'the OMIA permit has been issued' at the end of the first paragraph of the Interpretation." Attorney for the appellant (Ms. Rudd) suggested the record be kept open until the public records issue is resolved. f. Community Development Director Hendryx recommended that the Council approve the proposed resolution with the change proposed by the City Attorney. g. Mayor Griffith closed the public hearing. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 8, 2003 Page 6 ti • • h. Motion by Councilor Dirksen, seconded by Councilor Wilson, to adopt Resolution No. 03-27, amended with the change proposed by the City Attorney. RESOLUTION NO. 03-27 - A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.780. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council: Mayor Griffith - Yes Councilor Dirksen - Yes Councilor Moore - Yes Councilor Sherwood - Yes Councilor Wilson - Yes 7. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING — CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE BRETTON WOODS SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00001/PDR2003000 VAR2003-00006/VAR2003-00007) ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission approved request for a 10-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 2.34 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are between 5,500 and 6,879 square feet. The applicant also requested approval for an Adjustment to the 200-foot cul-de-sac length standard, and an Adjustment to the street improvement requirements of the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.810. The Adjustment would allow the applicant to construct a curb-tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated by a planter strip along SW 108th Avenue. On June 11, 2003, an appeal was filed pertaining to issues raised related to tree safety and water run-off through adjacent property caused by the development. LOCATION: 16455 SW 108th Avenue; WCTM 2S1 15AA, Tax Lots 1301 and 1400. ZONE: R-4.5; Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.790 and 18.810.100. a. Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or challenges: Declarations or challenges: The Mayor read the following: Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 8, 2003 Page 7 • 3.4 Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Agreement Accepting $51,486 in Federal Recreational Trail Program (RTP) Funds 3.5 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Contract to Wystan Brown Excavating for the Construction of Derry Dell Creek Sanitary Sewer Realignment b. Award Contract to the Lowest Responsive Bidder for the Construction of Hall Boulevard Improvements (Name of lowest bidder will not be known until after 6/30/03; therefore, supplemental packet material will be available and also forwarded to the City Council on July 1, 2003.) c. Award Contract to Pavement Maintenance Company for Street Sweeping d. Award Contract to Cascade Phillips to Service Portable Restrooms • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. UPDATE ON THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY • Staff Report: Library Staff 5. UPDATE ON TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE'S PROGRESS ON REVIEW OF A PROPOSED STREET MAINTENANCE FEE • Staff Report: Engineering Staff 6. CONTINUATION FROM JUNE 10, 2003 - PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI- JUDICIAL) - APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.780 a. Continue Public Hearing from June 10, 2003 b. Declarations or Challenges • c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Proponents Opponents Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03 - COUNCIL AGENDA — JULY 8, 2003 page 3 • 7. QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING — CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE BRETTON WOODS SUBDIVISION (SUB2003-00001/PDR200300001/ VAR2003-000061VAR2003-00007) ITEM ON APPEAL: On May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a request for a 10-lot Subdivision and Planned Development on 2.34 acres. The lots are to be developed with detached single-family homes. Lot sizes within the development are between 5,500 and 6,879 square feet. The applicant also requested approval for an Adjustment to the 200-foot cul-de-sac length standard, and an Adjustment to the street improvement requirements of the Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.810. The Adjustment would allow the applicant to construct a curb-tight sidewalk as opposed to a sidewalk separated by a planter strip along SW 108t Avenue. On June 11, 2003 an appeal was filed pertaining to issues raised related to tree safety and water run-off through adjacent property caused by the development. LOCATION: 16455 SW 108th Avenue; WCTM 25115AA, Tax Lots 1301 and 1400. ZONE: R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.430, 18.790 and 18.810.100. a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Consider Whether to Uphold or Deny the Planning Commission's Decision — Resolution No. 03- 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA — JULY 8, 2003 page 4 mulual CITY OF TIGARD FACT SHEET 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Contact: Dick Bewersdorff, (503) 639-4171 AGENDA: July 8, 2003 TOPIC: Appeal of Community Director's Interpretation regarding Billboard signs. BACKGROUND: On June 10, 2003, the City Council opened a public hearing on a West Coast Media and Media Arts appeal. The appeal was directed at the Director's interpretation of Community Development Code language concerning billboards. The hearing was continued until July 8, 2003 to allow the City Attorney's Office to respond to a letter submitted by Media Arts on June 10, 2003. The Council will continue deliberation at the July 8, 2003. COST: $250.00 appeal fee • • f AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF July 8,2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Regarding Billboard Signs PREPARED BY: Dick Bewersdorff DEPT HEAD OK A ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE •UNCIL Should the City Council approve a resolution affirming a Director's Interpretation of language in the Tigard Community Development Code, Chapter 18.780, regarding prohibition of`Billboard signs"within the Tigard City limits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution affirming the Director's Interpretation. INFORMATION SUMMARY On June 10, 2003, the City Council opened a public hearing on a West Coast Media and Media Arts appeal. The appeal was directed at the Community Development Director's interpretation of Tigard Community Development Code language concerning billboard signs. The hearing was continued until July 8, 2003 to allow the City Attorney's Office to respond to a letter submitted by Media Arts on June 10, 2003. The City Attorney's response is attached (Attachment 1). Council previously received all packets materials and the letter submitted by Media Arts in their June 10, 2003 packet and therefore, it is not included in this packet. Staff has again attached a copy of the resolution (Attachment 2) affirming the Director's interpretation which includes the attached interpretation (Exhibit A). OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Amend the Director's Interpretation VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not Applicable ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: City Attorney's response dated June 25, 2003 to Media Arts letter of June 10, 2003. Attachment 2: Resolution affirming Director's Interpretation. Exhibit A: Directors Interpretation Attachment 3: Letter from Christopher W. Rich of Rycewicz & Chenoweth, LLP dated June 10, 2003, received by City Administration June 11, 2003. FISCAL NOTES NA JUN '03 04:33PM RAMIS REW CORRIGAN • ATTACHMENT I • RAMIS CRAW CORRIGAN & B CHRACH, 11.,P • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W.Hoyt Street • Portland,Oregon 97209 • ‘ MEMORANDUM (503)222-4402 Fax:(503)243-2944 TO: City Council .City of Tigard • FROM: Timothy V. Ramis and Gary F. Firestone City Attorney's Office DATE: June 25, 2003 RE: Billboard Interpretation Response to Letter from Steve Abel Dated June 10, 2003 This memorandum addresses issues raised by Media Art's.legal counsel in his letter of June 10, • 2003, relating to the Director's Interpretation regarding the City's sign regulations. None of the arguments made in the letter prevent the City Council from approving the Interpretation. The City Council may choose to modify the Interpretation,but the letter has not provided any reason compelling the Council to change the basic conclusion reached in the Interpretation, which is that signs over the • maximum size allowed are prohibited. A. The Director correctly interpreted the code as prohibiting all signs in excess of the maximum allowed size. The first argument contained in theletter is that the Interpretation is wrong. The letter argues that the code and legislative history do not evidence the intent to prohibit billboards.Our review of the code and legislative history indicates that these documents do exhibit a clear intent to prohibit all excessively - large signs. Given the clarity of the record regarding the Council and Planning Commission's intent to • prohibit billboards, the Director's Interpretation appears to be supported by the record. . - The letter next argues that although TMC 18.780,080(M)prohibits billboards,the remainder of the code makes it clear that billboards are allowed in some circumstances. The premise of the argument is that TMC 18.780.090E.6 provides that if a freestanding sign is a billboard,TMC 18.780.090 applies. However, TMC 18.780.090 contains a provision limiting the maximum size of all signs. The letter • JUN 25 '03 04:33PM RAMIIiiiREW CORRIGAN • P. Memorandum re: Billboard Interpretation Response to Letter from Steve Abel Dated June 10, 2003 June 25, 2003 Page 2 states that"the most reasonable interpretation of the code is that it allows signs that meet the definition of permitted sign,even if they might be characterized as billboards as well." This interpretation does not appear to achieve the result that Media Art is seeking because a sign in excess of the maximum .permitted size is not a permitted sign. • Media Art then argues that TMC 18.780.0908.6 does not cross reference TMC 18.780.070M, which prohibits billboards. It does not need to. The prohibition in TMC 18.780.070M applies to all • signs in all zones it does not need to be cross-referenced. The reference in TMC 18.780.09013.6 is better understood as an affirmation that any sign must comply with the regulations of TMC 18,780.070E, including the dimensional.requirements. Next, the letter states that the only interpretation of the code that does not require omitting standards is one that concludes that the rest of TMC 18.780.090E does not apply where'an OMIA permit exists. It further claims that the code should be read so that subsections 8.2 through E.10 do not apply to OMIA signs. TMC 18.780.070,however, does not provide separate standards for OMIA signs but merely provides that a sign that has received an OMIA permit (which can be obtained only after certification of compliance with applicable City standards)does not need a separate City permit. It does not exempt OMIA signs from compliance with size and other requirements of the City code. • Media Art finally argues that the City previously interpreted its code.as stating that the City's land use regulations do not apply to freeway oriented signs,and has included a memorandum from Brad . Kilby dated January 14.2003. Mr.Kilby also wrote a letter to Media Art,dated April 22,2003 in which he describes the code sections that do apply to freeway oriented•signs,such as billboards..If ambiguity • has been created by these communications, the Planning Director and the Council should resolve the question. The memorandums justify taking interpretive action. They do not preclude the Planning Director or Council from interpreting the code. . B. The Director correctly Interpreted TMC 18.780.090E.1. • • Media Art tries to make a substantive argument out of the fact that, when quoting the code language, the Director's Interpretation adjusted the tense of a verb to make it fit with the rest of the sentence. As is clear from the rest of the interpretation,the Director was addressing the question of who • "qualifies" for an OMIA permit. The statement that evidence of a permit is needed is simply a • description of the evidence an applicant must provide to establish compliance with the standard. Since the City is not in a position to second-guess the state,it is reasonable for the City to require evidence of a permit for the site in question as the only way the City has of determining whether a person qualifies for an OMIA permit. , JUN 25. '03 04:33PM RAMISEW CORRIGAN • P.4 Memorandum re: Billboard Interpretation Response to Letter from•Steve Abel Dated June 10, 2003 • June 25,2003 • Page 3 We note that although the explanation in the Interpretation made it clear that the permit must be for the site in question,the Interpretation does not expressly so state_ We therefore recommended adding "for the location in question" after"the OMIA permit has been issued"at the end of the first paragraph of the Interpretation. The Director's Interpretation correctly states that a person qualifies for an OMIA permit only if the person has met all requirements for an OMIA permit, including the compliance affidavit from the City. The letter has not addressed this part of the interpretation and has provided no basis for any other interpretation. . C. The billboard prohibition is not unconstitutional. The letter argues that the prohibition on billboards is unconstitutionally vague. It cites to no case law for this argument and does not specify which constitutional provisions are at issue. While the word "vague" does not appear in either the federal or state constitutions, the state has recognized:that . vagueness may be an issue. Delgado v. Souders, 334 Or 122, 46 P3d 729 (2002). A vagueness challenge under the equal privileges and immunities clause applies only if there is a great risk of unequal " treatment as a result of the vagueness.By adopting an interpretation,the Council will avoid any risk of unequal treatment. The provision as written does not violate the equal privileges and immunities clause and the interpretation will prevent any possibility of unequal treatment on an "as applied"basis. The existence of an ambiguity does not make a law unconstitutional, especially when a formal • interpretation can reduce any uncertainty. Under the federal constitution,vagueness has been applied under the due process clause of the 14`h Amendment. The courts recognize that a different standard applies to vagueness challenges to civil laws than to criminal laws. While a somewhat heightened standard may be applied to laws regulating speech,the law at issue here is not content based and is only a"time,place and manner"regulation that is not subject to heightened scrutiny. Since the Interpretation resolves ambiguity, it addresses the vagueness issue and reduces the likelihood of a successful constitutional challenge based on this theory. The letter argues that, under the code, "all materials placed or constructed on a structure to convey a message or other display which can be viewed from a right of way,another property,or the air are prohibited." This is a forced and convoluted reading of the code. The code clearly permits many signs and their supporting structure. The prohibition on billboards is clearly intended as a prohibition on overlarge signs. The prohibition does not violate the equal protection clause. The letter then argues that the prohibition on billboards is unconstitutional because it Lacks • • JUN 25 '03 04:34PM RAMIC REW CORRIGAN . P,,5 • , Memorandum re: Billboard Interpretation Response to Letter from Steve Abel Dated June 10, 2003 June 25, 2003 • Page 4 narrow objective and definite standards to guide the licensing authority. As interpreted and as applied, it contains clear, objective and definite standards. The prohibitions on billboards is not an unreasonable time, place and manner restiiction. ;The City does have the authority to regulate the size and location of signs. Media Art argues that the only rationale for the prohibition is that people do not like billboards. The rationale for the prohibition on billboards is that overly large signs create visual clutter and are detrimental to the appearance of the City. The City is not interfering with the content of speech,just limiting the maximum size of signs. The allowed size is sufficiently large to allow speech to be expressed. D. The Interpretation does not amend the code. The Interpretation is just that--an interpretation. It does not amend the code. It does not modify the code. It simply interprets it. Therefore,it is not a text amendment and therefore is not subject to the text amendment procedures of TMC 18.390.060G. It also does not violate Planning Goal 2 in that it • does not create new regulations and in any case allows for a public process,which is occurring with this appeal. Media Art claims that its federal due process rights were violated by the City's process from . seeking Council direction on an issue of code interpretation. In our view, the City Manager had the - authority under the code to seek Council resolution of an important interpretive issue. This authority was exercised in a manner that granted Media Art ample opportunity to present its arguments and to establish a record for appeal,if necessary. The facts do not appear to establish a due process violation. Conclusion The Council should review and consider the arguments advanced by Media Art,as well as those • presented by the Planning Director. The Council is free to adopt, reject or amend the proposed Interpretation. The arguments made by Media Art do not prevent the adoption of the Interpretation favored by the Planning Commission. gkigard/tuba-medieari/CouncilMml(srb) • • • • • Attachment 2 • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.780. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director is charged with making interpretations based on the best available information for any ambiguities or words having multiple meaning in the Tigard Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's Interpretation is supported by past Planning Commission and City Council actions to expressly prohibit billboards in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council passed Ordinance 93-12 to expressly prohibit billboards in the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the matter on June 10, 2003, • NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby expresses its affirmation that the interpretation (Exhibit A) made by the Community Development Director is in keeping with the intention of the Tigard City Council and the purpose of the Tigard sign regulations of the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.780. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. - PASSED: This day of 2003. • Mayor-City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder-City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 03 - Page 1 • • • EXHIBIT "A" DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARDS TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M TMC 18.780.090.E.1.and TMC 18.780.090.E.6 I. INTRODUCTION This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development Code regarding signs. II. INTERPRETATIONS A. TMC 18.780.015.A.8, 18.780.015.A.9 and 18.780.070.M Code Language TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure. TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a billboard. TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards. Billboards are prohibited." Interpretation As applied to freeway-oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. • As applied to freeway-oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign-area greater than 400 square feet Discussion The two definitions (of"billboard" and "billboard structure") are circular and provide little guidance as to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions are not very helpful. For example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel designed to carry outdoor advertising." This definition does not provide much detail but is.in accord with the common conception of a billboard as a very large sign. TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were prohibited, they were allowed only in certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway 217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93-12). However, it is clear that when the Council prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway-oriented -signs because freestanding freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain standards. TMC 18.780.090.E. Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign and that the Council's obvious intent as to freeway-oriented signs was to prohibit certain signs while allowing others, it appears that the Council intended the term "billboard" in the context of freeway oriented signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum size allowed for a freeway-oriented sign. The normal maximum area for a freeway-oriented sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square feet for a two-sided sign. TMC 18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the applicable review criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign area. TMC-18.780.140_A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a freeway-oriented sign that does not exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through the adjustment process and would not be a billboard. In the context of freeway-oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet • • EXHIBIT "A" DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARDS TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC 18.780.090.E.6 I. INTRODUCTION This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development Code regarding signs. II. INTERPRETATIONS A. TMC 18.780.015.A.8, 18.780_015.A_9 and 18.780.070.M Code Language TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure. TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a billboard. TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards. Billboards are prohibited." Interpretation As applied to freeway-oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway-oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Discussion The two definitions (of"billboard" and "billboard structure") are circular and provide little guidance as to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions are not very helpful. For example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel designed to carry outdoor advertising." This definition does not provide much detail but is in accord with the common conception of a billboard as a very large sign. TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were prohibited, they were allowed only in certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway 217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93-12). However, it is clear that when the Council prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway-oriented signs because freestanding freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain standards. TMC 18.780.090.E. Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign and that the Council's obvious intent as to freeway-oriented signs was to prohibit certain signs while allowing others, it appears that the Council intended the term "billboard" in the context of freeway oriented signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum size allowed for a freeway-oriented sign. The normal maximum area for a freeway-oriented sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square feet for a two-sided sign. TMC 18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the applicable review criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign area. TMC-18.780.140.A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a freeway-oriented sign that does not exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through the adjustment process and would not be a billboard. In the context of freeway-oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet • • B. TMC 18.780.090.E_1 Code Language TMC 18.780.090.E_1: Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) need not seek separate approval from the City of Tigard. Interpretation The "separate approval" provision of TMC 18.780.090.E.1 distinguishes the City's sign permit process set out in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18 from the state permitting process, which includes a requirement to obtain an affidavit from the City. ORS 337.723. A person qualifies for an OMIA permit only if that person has obtained an affidavit from the City that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations and the state determines that the other OMIA standards are satisfied. If a person has not obtained an ORS 337.723 affidavit that the City standards have been met, the person has not "qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." To demonstrate that a person has qualified for an OMIA permit, the person must provide evidence the OMIA permit has been issued. This section does not exempt a person from obtaining building permits, only from obtaining the sign permit required under Chapter 18.780. Under the building code, the building official is to deny permits for failure to meet building code standards or other applicable laws and ordinances. The City's prohibition on billboards is an applicable law or ordinance preventing issuance of building permits for billboards. Discussion This provision is ambiguous because it does not clearly define what "qualifying for a permit" means. The provision could be interpreted to mean that the City should make an independent evaluation in. each case whether a person meets all the qualifications for a'permit from the State under the Oregon Motorist Information Act. This interpretation is unacceptable and unreasonable because it would have the City make an independent evaluation of a decision that only the Oregon Department of Transportation has authority to make. See ORS 377.725. That interpretation could result in an avoidance of the City process in cases in which the state denies the OMIA permit. This is dearly not what the Council intended in passing this provision. It could also be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to seek separate City-approval if the person has obtained an OMIA permit for a location in the City. This is a reasonable and acceptable interpretation of the code provision. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 must be read in context of the OMIA. A person can qualify for an OMIA permit only if that person obtains an affidavit from the City that the sign is permitted under the City codes. ORS 337.723. The provision that a person need not obtain a "separate approval"from the City makes sense when interpreted in light of the provision in ORS 337.723, which includes the City as part of the OMIA process. If the City issues an affidavit certifying compliance under ORS 337.723, it will have verified that the applicant meets City standards, and a second City process would be superfluous. However, if no affidavit certifying compliance is issued, then the City would not have determined whether its code has been complied with and a separate City process is needed. The intent of the provision is to avoid two separate City processes for a single sign, while requiring at least one City process to determine whether a sign complies with City standards. Therefore, TMC 1.8.780.090.E.1 should be interpreted as meaning that a person may avoid obtaining a City permit (the "separate approval") if the person has obtained an affidavit from the City under ORS 337.723 stating that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations. If a person has not obtained the ORS 337.723 affidavit indicating compliance, the person has not"qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." If a person does obtain an affidavit from the City verifying compliance, the person could proceed with the billboard construction only if the person satisfies the state that all other OMIA permit requirements. are met. The only way for the City to determine compliance with other OMIA standards is by verifying whether an OMIA permit has been issued. A person seeking to avoid the City permit process must provide evidence that the OMIA permit has been issued. Page 2 of 4 • • This interpretation also resolves the possible inconsistency with prohibition on all billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. As properly interpreted, TMC 18.780.090.E_6 prohibits all signs greater than a certain size, including those that are supported by a billboard structure. Given the interpretation of"billboard" discussed in Section A above, the structure of a smaller sign would not be a "billboard structure" because it would be for a sign that is smaller than a billboard and the prohibition on billboards would not apply. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between TMC 18.780.090.E.6 and TMC 18.780.070.M because TMC 18.780.090.E.6 does not allow any billboards prohibited by TMC 18.780.070.M. III. APPLICATION OF THIS INTERPRETATION This interpretation applies in all situations in which the code sections discussed in this interpretation are applicable. Because this is an interpretation and not a regulation, it is to be applied by all City staff in all situations, even as to applications that have been filed. IV. FINALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS • This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to TMC 18.340.020.E and F. • -/ / - / G/e7 �`‘ 1✓ James N.P. He •ryx, Community : < ' - opment Director DATE:05 /6/O 5 • Page 4 of 4 • • If a person has received an OMIA permit for another location, the person has not qualified for a permit for an OMIA permit for a location in the City until the person either obtains a City permit or an affidavit of compliance from the City under ORS 337.723. Furthermore, the only exemption provided for by this section is an exemption from the City's sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. A building permit, if otherwise required, still must be obtained. TMC 18.780.010.E.1 is in the context of the sign permit regulations in the Community Development Code. It is clear from the context that the "separate approval" refers to a sign permit, not a building permit. Indeed, the City does not have authority to state that a building permit is not required if state law requires a building permit, which it does for most sign structures. The building official cannot approve a building permit unless the application conforms to the requirements of the building code "and other pertinent laws or ordinances." OSSC (UBC) 106.4.1. The prohibition on billboards imposed by TMC 18.780.010.E.1 discussed in this interpretation is a "pertinent law" that prevents the issuance of a building permit for billboards. C. TMC 18.780.090.E.6 • Code Provision TMC 18.780.090.E.6: For freestanding signs, a total maximum sign area of 160 square feet per fact (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard, then the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090 shall apply. Interpretation The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is interpreted to mean that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above) are not permitted. Discussion The first sentence of this section is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence is confusing and ambiguous. That sentence states that if a sign is a billboard, the provisions of subsection 18.780.090 apply. This statement is ambiguous for two reasons. Most importantly, any reference to standards being applicable to billboards is confusing, given the express prohibitions on billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. Second, there may be some possible ambiguity as to whether the "provisions of Subsection 18.780.090" includes the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. Dealing with the second possible area of ambiguity, the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 is one of the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090. There is no language in the second sentence that would exclude the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 from being applicable. It would have been easy to include an express provision stating that the first sentence did not apply to billboards, or to add the word "but" between the two sentences. The Council in adopting the provision did not do that. To interpret the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 in a way that would make the first sentence not applicable to billboards would be to insert a provision that is not there. The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 should therefore be interpreted as making the size limitation of the first sentence of that subsection applicable to billboards. In interpreting this provision, it should be noted that the code definition of billboard -a sign supported by a billboard structure- applies to this provision. The apparent intent was therefore that any sign that had a billboard structure could not exceed the other requirements of freeway-oriented signs, including the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. The best interpretation of the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is therefore that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above), are not permitted. • Paae 3 of 4 _ • • After discussion, Council approved a motion to table this item to the June 24, 2003, Council meeting to give residents more time to have their questions answered by staff. 11 . PUBLIC HEARING Project Engineer Greg Berry introduced this (INFORMATIONAL) TO agenda item. During the public testimony CONSIDER ESTABLISHING portion of the hearing, residents in the SANITARY SEWER District had questions about the cost of the REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. district and the return on the City's 29 — SW PARK STREET, SW DERRY investment. Council consensus was that this DELL COURT, SW COOK LANE item would be set over to the June 24, AND SW WATKINS AVENUE 2003, Council meeting. 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO Finance Director Prosser presented the staff AMEND SECTION 3.44.055(A) report. Council approved Ordinance No. OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL 03-05 to amend the Tigard Municipal CODE RELATING TO THE Code's definition of substandard DEFINITION OF SUBSTANDARD undeveloped property. UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY 13. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI- Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. JUDICIAL) — APPEAL OF A Community Development Director Hendryx DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION presented the staff report. Earlier this year REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS; building permits were requested for COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT construction of freeway oriented signs. The CODE 18.780 permits were denied by Community Development Department staff after finding that the signs appeared to be billboards and would exceed the maximum allowable size and height for freeway oriented signs. The Community Development Director issued his interpretation and the City Manager appealed the decision to the Council seeking affirmation. A separate appeal was filed on behalf of Media Arts, Inc. During the public testimony portion of the hearing, Michelle Rudd, Attorney for Media Council Meeting Follow-Up Meeting of June 10,2003-Page 5 • • • Arts, Inc., testified that the Tigard staff interpretations are in error. A letter, accompanied by a packet of information, was distributed to the City Council to address the issues "raised by the May 15, 2003 Director's Interpretation of portions of the City's sign ordinance." Ms. Rudd advised that the interpretation was ambiguous, suffered from Constitutionality problems, the pending applications were being judged by a different standard, and there was a violation of due process. After discussion between Ms. Rudd and City Attorney Ramis, Council consensus was to set this hearing over to July 8 so the Council and City Attorney could review the materials submitted by Ms. Rudd. Attorney • Rudd agreed to have any additional • materials to be submitted to the Council for its review within one week. The staff report for the July 8 meeting will be available by July 1, 2003. • I:\ADM\CATHY\MTG-DIST\ACTION LETTER\030610 DOC Council Meeting Follow-Up Meeting of June 10,2003- Page 6 • 11. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) TO CONSIDER ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 29 — SW PARK STREET, SW DERRY DELL COURT, SW COOK LANE AND SW WATKINS AVENUE a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Engineering Department c. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 03 - 12. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDMENT SECTION 3.44.055(A) OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF SUBSTANDARD UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY a. Staff Report: Finance Staff b. Council Questions and Discussion c. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 03- 13. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) — APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 18.780 a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges c. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony - For all those wishing to testify, please be aware that failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Council and parties an opportunity to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on this issue. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described by staff or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which you believe apply to the decision. - Proponents - Opponents - Rebuttal e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 03- COUNCIL AGENDA — JUNE 10, 2003 page 5 • • AGENDA ITEM# FOR AGENDA OF June 10, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD,OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY • ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appeal of a Director's Interpretation Regarding Billboard Signs PREPARED BY: Brad Kilby DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council approve a resolution affirming a Director's Interpretation of language in the Tigard Community Development Code,Chapter 18.780, regarding prohibition of"Billboard signs" within the Tigard city limits? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolutionaffirming the Director's Interpretation of language in the Tigard Community Development Code regarding prohibition of Billboard signs. INFORMATION SUMMARY On April 13, 1993, the Tigard City Council, by majority vote, agreed to prohibit billboard signs in the Tigard city limits, and to remove the approval criteria for billboard signs from the Special Condition Signs section of then TDC Section 18.114.090. Earlier this year, West Coast Media, LLC, and later Media Arts, Inc. applied for building permit approval to construct"freeway oriented" signs under the premise that if they received approval from ODOT and pursuant to the Oregon Motorists Information Act(OMIA) they would not be subject to separate review from the City of Tigard. City planning staff recommended to the Building Official that the building permits for the signs be denied after finding that the signs that were applied for exceeded the maximum allowable size and height for"freeway oriented" signs, and that in fact, the signs that were applied for appeared to be billboards. The Building Official denied approval of the permits, and the two companies filed appeals with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeals were based on language in Tigard Development Code,Chapter 18.780. Staff requested that the language be clarified by the Community Development Director. On May 16, 2003, the Community Development Director issued his interpretation, and the City Manager appealed the decision to Council seeking affirmation. A separate appeal was filed on behalf of Media Arts, Inc. by Michelle Rudd of Stoel Rives LLP. The Director's decision is partly based on Ordinance 93-12 that was passed by the City Council in April of 1993 to prohibit Billboards in the City of Tigard. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Council could disagree with the Director's Interpretation. • • VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not Applicable ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Staff recommendation to the City Council Attachment 2: Resolution affirming the Directors Interpretation of Billboard signs in the City of Tigard. Exhibit A: Director's Interpretation of language regarding billboards in the Tigard Municipal Code and Ordinance 93-12 Attachment 3: City Council Hearing Minutes for April 13, 1993 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minutes for March 8, 1993 Attachment 5: City Ordinance 93-12 Attachment 6: Addendum to the staff recommendation to the City Council FISCAL NOTES The cost of the appeal is$250.00. • • l CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD • TO: Members of the Tigard City Council FROM: Brad Kilby, Associate Planner DATE: May 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Staff recommendation regarding the appeal of MIS2003-00021 The Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.340 affords the Community Director the discretion to interpret any terms or phrases within the Tigard Development Code that may be ambiguous or subject to two or more reasonable meanings. In December of last year, I was approached by Chris Carlisle of West Coast Media, LLC to sign some zoning affidavits for several properties within the City of Tigard. He indicated that he was intending to apply for sign permits from ODOT under the Oregon Motorist Information Act. I wrote a memo to ODOT regarding Freeway Oriented signs, and indicated in my letter that as long as they received OM IA approval for the signs, the freeway-oriented signs would not need separate permits from the City. I indicated to Chris that he would still be required to attain building permits for the signs, and expressly stated to him as did the counter staff, that Billboards were prohibited in the City of Tigard. Earlier this year, West Coast Media, LLC and Media Arts, Inc.applied for building permits for signs that exceeded both the maximum allowable height and size of freeway oriented signs. At my direction, the Building Official denied the permits, and refunded the review fees for those permits that were not structurally reviewed. Both companies filed appeals to LUBA. As a result, I requested that the Community Development Director issue a formal Director's Interpretation regarding language that mentions Billboards in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.780. On May 16,2003, the Community Development Director did issue a formal interpretation that substantiated my letters. The Director's decision is partly based on Ordinance 93-12 that was passed by the City Council in April of 1993 to prohibit Billboards in the City of Tigard. The City Manager appealed the interpretation to allow the City Council to review the interpretation to affirm that his interpretation is correct. Subsequently, the City Attorney's Office has withdrawn the decisions in order that we may reissue the decisions with findings. Staff review of the pertinent materials that are enclosed as part of your record, indicates that the intent was to expressly prohibit billboards within the Tigard City limits, and concurs with the Community Development Director's Interpretation. Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the Director's Interpretation. • • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMUNITY DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.780. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director is charged with making interpretations based on the best available information for any ambiguities or words having multiple meaning in the Tigard Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's Interpretation is supported by past Planning Commission and City Council actions to expressly prohibit billboards in Tigard; and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council passed Ordinance 93-12 to expressly prohibit billboards in the City of Tigard;and WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on the matter on June 10, 2003, • NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby expresses its affirmation that the interpretation(Exhibit A) made by the Community Development Director is in keeping with the intention of the Tigard City Council and the purpose of the Tigard sign regulations of the Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18.780. SECTION 2: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2003. Mayor- City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder- City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO.03- Page 1 • S • DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARDS TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC 18.780.090.E.6 I. INTRODUCTION This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development Code regarding signs. II. INTERPRETATIONS A. TMC 18.780.015.A.8, 18.780.015.A.9 and 18.780.070.M Code Language TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure. TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a billboard. TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards. Billboards are prohibited." Interpretation As applied to freeway-oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway-oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Discussion The two definitions (of"billboard" and"billboard structure") are circular and provide little guidance as to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions are not very helpful. For example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel designed to carry outdoor advertising." This definition does not provide much detail but is in accord with the common conception of a billboard as a very large sign. TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were prohibited, they were allowed only in certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway 217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93-12). However, it is clear that when the Council prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway-oriented signs because freestanding freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain standards. TMC 18.780.090.E. Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign and that the Council's obvious intent as to freeway-oriented signs was to prohibit certain signs while allowing others, it appears that the Council intended the term"billboard" in the context of freeway oriented signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum'size allowed for a freeway-oriented sign. The normal maximum area for a freeway-oriented sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square feet for a two-sided sign. TMC 18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the applicable review criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign area. TMC 18.780.140.A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a freeway-oriented sign that does not exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through the adjustment process and would not be a billboard. In the context of freeway-oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Page 1 of 4 O B. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 Code Language TMC 18.780.090.E.1: Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) need not seek separate approval from the City of Tigard. Interpretation The"separate approval'provision of TMC 18.780.090.E.1 distinguishes the Citys sign permit process set out in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18 from the state permitting process, which includes a requirement to obtain an affidavit from the City. ORS 337.723. A person qualifies for an OMIA permit only if that person has obtained an affidavit from the City that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations and the state determines that the other OMIA standards are satisfied. If a person has not obtained an ORS 337.723 affidavit that the City standards have been met, the person has not"qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." To demonstrate that a person has qualified for an OMIA permit, the person must provide evidence the OMIA permit has been issued. This section does not exempt a person from obtaining building permits, only from obtaining the sign permit required under Chapter 18.780. Under the building code, the building official is to deny permits for failure to meet building code standards or other applicable laws and ordinances. The City's prohibition on billboards is an applicable law or ordinance preventing issuance of building permits for billboards. Discussion This provision is ambiguous because it does not clearly define what "qualifying for a permit' means. The provision could be interpreted to mean that the City should make an independent evaluation in each case whether a person meets all the qualifications for a permit from the State under the Oregon Motorist Information Act. This interpretation is unacceptable and unreasonable because it would have the City make an independent evaluation of a decision that only the Oregon Department of Transportation has authority to make. See ORS 377.725. That interpretation could result in a n avoidance of the City process in cases in which the state denies the OMIA permit. This is clearly not what the Council intended in passing this provision. It could also be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to seek separate City approval if the person has obtained an OMIA permit for a location in the City. This is a reasonable and acceptable interpretation of the code provision. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 must be read in context of the OMIA.A person can qualify for an OMIA permit only if that person obtains an affidavit from the City that the sign is permitted under the City codes. ORS 337.723. The provision that a person need not obtain a"separate approval"from the City makes sense when interpreted in light of the provision in ORS 337.723, which includes the City as part of the OMIA process. If the City issues an affidavit certifying compliance under ORS 337.723, it will have verified that the applicant meets City standards, and a second City process would be superfluous. However, if no affidavit certifying compliance is issued, then the City would not have determined whether its code has been complied with and a separate City process is needed. The intent of the provision is to avoid two separate City processes for a single sign, while requiring at least one City process to determine whether a sign complies with City standards. Therefore, TMC 18.780.090.E.1 should be interpreted as meaning that a person may avoid obtaining a City permit (the "separate approval') if the person has obtained an affidavit from the City under ORS 337.723 stating that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations. If a person has not obtained the.ORS 337.723 affidavit indicating compliance, the person has not"qualifie[d]for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." If a person does obtain an affidavit from the City verifying compliance, the person could proceed with the billboard construction only if the person satisfies the state that all other OMIA permit requirements are met. The only way for the City to determine compliance with other OMIA standards is by verifying whether an OMIA permit has been issued. A person seeking to avoid the City permit process must provide evidence that the OMIA permit has been issued. Page 2 of 4 • If a person has received an OMIA permit for another location, the person has not qualified for a permit for an OMIA permit for a location in the City until the person either obtains a City permit or an affidavit of compliance from the City under ORS 337.723. Furthermore, the only exemption provided for by this section is an exemption from the City's sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. A building permit, if otherwise required, still must be obtained. TMC 18.780.010.E.1 is in the context of the sign permit regulations in the Community Development Code. It is clear from the context that the "separate approval" refers to a sign permit, not a building permit. Indeed, the City does not have authority to state that a building permit is not required if state law requires a building permit, which it does for most sign structures. The building official cannot approve a building permit unless the application conforms to the requirements of the building code "and other pertinent laws or ordinances." OSSC (UBC) 106.4.1. The prohibition on billboards imposed by TMC 18.780.010.E.1 discussed in this interpretation is a "pertinent law" that prevents the issuance of a building permit for billboards. C. TMC 18.780.090.E.6 Code Provision TMC 18.780.090.E.6: For freestanding signs, a total maximum sign area of 160 square feet per fact (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard, then the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090 shall apply. Interpretation The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is inter reted to mean that signs with billboard structures f that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above) are not permitted. Discussion The first sentence of this section is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence is confusing and ambiguous. That sentence states that if a sign is a billboard, the provisions of subsection 18.780.090 apply. This statement is ambiguous for two reasons. Most importantly, any reference to standards being applicable to billboards is confusing, given the express prohibitions on billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. Second, there may be some possible ambiguity as to whether the "provisions of Subsection 18.780.090" includes the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. Dealing with the second possible area of ambiguity, the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 is one of the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090. There is no language in the second sentence that would exclude the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 from being applicable. It would have been easy to include an express provision stating that the first sentence did not apply to billboards, or to add the word "but" between the two sentences. The Council in adopting the provision did not do that. To interpret the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 in a way that would make the first sentence not applicable to billboards would be to insert a provision that is not there. The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 should therefore be interpreted as making the size limitation of the first sentence of that subsection applicable to billboards. In interpreting this provision, it should be noted that the code definition of billboard-a sign supported by a billboard structure- applies to this provision. The apparent intent was therefore that any sign that had a billboard structure could not exceed the other requirements of freeway-oriented signs, including the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. The best interpretation of the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is therefore that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above), are not permitted. Page 3 of 4 • This interpretation also resolves the possible inconsistency with prohibition on all billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. As properly interpreted, TMC 18.780.090.E.6 prohibits all signs greater than a certain size, including those that are supported by a billboard structure. Given the interpretation of"billboard" discussed in Section A above, the structure of a smaller sign would not be a"billboard structure" because it would be for a sign that is smaller than a billboard and the prohibition on billboards would not apply. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between TMC 18.780.090.E.6 and TMC 18.780.070.M because TMC 18.780.090.E.6 does not allow any billboards prohibited by TMC 18.780.070.M. III. APPLICATION OF THIS INTERPRETATION This interpretation applies in all situations in which the code sections discussed in this interpretation • are applicable. Because this is an interpretation and not a regulation, it is to be applied by all City staff in all situations, even as to applications that have been filed. IV. FINALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to TMC 18.340.020.E and F. James N.P. Hendryx, Community Development Director DATE: Page 4 of 4 410 . .: - - :`€y. �Xtrc"4A11,k: ric:u . 1W k?a ,rct .Ip°n a.ti;> $-`, - ?U 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDII;T;ICE NO. 93- la AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIOIS OF THE commumwy DEVELOPMENT CODS SECTION 18.114.0 70 TO ADO SUBSECTION N. TO Pi1(3BIBIT BILLBOARDS AND TO REPEAL SECTION 18.114.090 A. SUBSECTIONS 1-4 WHICH PROVIDES host BILLBOARDS. WHEREAS, The City of Tigard _ .yids it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodical_ to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission retrieved the staff recommendation at a public hearing on March 8, 1993 and voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, The city of Tigard finds that the amendment does not affect City Comprehensive Plan Goals or State Planning Goals; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that there has been a public outcry concerning the proliferation, number, spacing and aesthetics of billboards; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on April 13, 1993 to consider the amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit NAN. Language to be added in ' Language to be deleted is shown in [BRACKETS]. ■ This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By r l(T j Or a 1 vote of all Council members p�spit after be read by number and title only, this 3"" day of . 1 , 1993. / Ca rine Wheatley, City rder APPROVED: This l■ 4� -1 day oitIP .41 - , 199 . .:1-Ali d—. :f'''�'• , Mayor Approved s to form: (4-C. City Attorney Date ORDINANCE No. 93-_fa Page 1 • • • • • ' , •.' • . . 4110114T., f1 I • • -.• 248A14a70 Pr&4Jit.d• . , •. „ ' • • ,•- . • . . . . „. . 0i11440e0 tisivagiaLsmoditutt8itat. • • A. Special condition .i9ns•••=-="4411 have -10101/1-•V or 1144q411 441;ignistOitiaktiaiiali4.461.14 ii::1****t4';04 aaxao nuaber or •. . r.gulàt,tons contlined in this chapter. . - ' . „ „ ;,• • . • . . .• . .• ...• , .„ • . . . ..” . . .• „ _ ,. ..„ • -; -. • -.,.• ft. Billboard: sign. regulations ihall bs as •-• •.' ••••'•-•,' •• • fial6iiiit•• ." • • * •.• . ; •.•••: : (i) torifs-,,S*3011#04:•. -; •, .• . ._ (I) ,•141004'd signs 84:,141,'•'114-:;-P447a#tod,- • • Only in a •,04 • 0 ,.,:ii ii,: :1?�.Y: _ -4-i;1:-VS-.:1-7j;,,', j`ps-h`.. ti �w. .a.-.rea-.a.....0... ..,, ,. ,.v....> -.,z.. ., '-„�".rm.'z:1."icraeSirti'rP9.r:uGv- ZwS:tbArit..'b%'�_4i£u�':.t b �°.fY`?-_ ?�v�+»+N.iVlano'�aL+ar e - .. jib : W.._ 1�R> .. l'" `' 'miiiroiaator tli ' :! 1 and=i*iii1 bs:, snbjs . :ts _ Ions of Subsaetic*i 1$:,114,,11 .� -` Paiv38 18._11.4:130 t''itE ,.C; 'doilasilioial.. Zone* an-`18.,114.090 al ]; F. ,Industria l • 1. [a.'. .Billboard',:Sighs :>isi -: ordan cs vim, Section:., 'l8.114,.090 :1 . ' - 1 . i �v.�^ �t«'s`E - - s.,r-:eg,rrt! ys''.'''P.xar.�.=f!>.pE n` , e �T_ - y..'=' � ..,. � ...a..�.�s^���*�_':A.:vf` ,P' ��`r�-°•�:n�`�'..'.'„a£x .....,, ge,.*':�,s y"r3i«%:�'.'...::.�+r..., � ,-. -e` y_ v :-fkc-,cry.* • • • _.••• C3 lC cQU_>lI'C II,:; • i 'iNG.:I " Ponta - 'kaput• 13,= 1993 • - rating wool...:called; to order"_-.apt :31 p i :. by a ayor.'Edward..- 1;. _1-: ' Counc�1 = Praaan :: Mayor ..Jerry' S i�da'f. Ca us fors tiuly Fasslar, " i ::Conover':8a�►ley,.:P of;Hunt:,::-::and Jobu%,>8c w rtz. • Stiff ' 00.***":, ior i ; D :recta=, ;L a Newto i,;: ii y,"F,al t "[ of ito ''' haal tob :nson, dal. CotnSsel'; Catberins;stasatley, City I zor er; :and. Randy."tksolaY.;":_City;Eng neer $T.PYJ3SION• gas city. nfatrator reported.:that':thera, `ras a • gas. 'leark+,ia',the ae vire"litun, _-c#ty'' l l':.lt t'::week. • A'':ts*porairy rep3 T:irllY ;i on.i'.; :, `': ort to t.ouncil•on the proposed r aalsnt:'.solutioni :; • - Volunteer- Dinner;" Rc*inder" Next i k:.,on T ursday, ,, • April 23'.' - Goal Bettina' .sess on .- tentatively F'set:; for; ay 1!S.. (Note Cl arified: later:"in week;°to tentativee data :=of:May- - j ;gory%°Hurl": ubco=aittee --.:;.City-= aistratos a4vis.d thy: Libra y°''h*s 'a :subs ttee fox" 'futuirs':_;strategic- planninq 2hiey=sail;: t::;OUld; boi".;`usatul: a f' • �C�ounict parson' would`attend the s>bcoaa ttsa Bing* Y{;4_"% +e E'.and 5%3"" _8-9,3;30 a ) 3� yor Edwards advf i r Vo`u].d like to`-attend, bu ;could o ly,go Rtbi y held`tfis:;< ast3bq. in the +evening.. " " . •• - =Sitio.-.: Street - Councilor-.:.�:Fessler-,,:-;reportei :that"_ no aigrr'�si�tt ":has ;been`.. reac '-project> for:`the Main Street "ar ae<:tor'. tI ':.$50 000:::Sava l'abl ` ;AZ's;" raig_brief • disc son on "r grit is of n l ere:= • - Co>au ,it ter Coates- iYenta tivs.Iy__w lif bs:a�skad-:to 's at"_with cit :Council=';on-:4/27 to .di:scrss� !i'd*tf"n tt~:dr- Y� ;Cgawunty"=Canto►%:.aka O ` 1993 :- PE 1`:" • • • . . • O' , . .. ' . ' -'7..:.:`";:ey.;,1.: ::::1-;:;!'"Z::,tT- -"*.•:'1',E.'ff•Vi.42.':-`4T,,,,.T.,ili ??,,,:.!.7-T::',2'",`":- 7.::::-"..-: . • . •.- ---..,-.--:-,:;. ;••••::::&:in-.::-i-;''' `,---•":,-,'..,„,.ic,,-,,,,,0-;:".,,t ktivg.;..:;,74:,...4,,,1 , -,:_ . : - . . . -,,- •... -..-1, E,,,,,..,;:-4,...,-.,,:,„.....„,:,„:1.:-.;_;:?;i ir'mvirp ti;v0.-'.t.: -." '-. ' .' • . , .' • -,.."'S ,2,' ".!' N.• :',7",' `'!?4-,?l',V.9«.-:,:,N;),..7'., ' -'' , I: --•..':4-:: .....,..., ...-^--...-::4; I. • . . .i,:e.• •. ;-:•ii.a?*2",Z,",g44,;-.4V:.•'ill,kg::,t3,-_.- . ••••■ Egbarjag,4casaako,gtgainajwistiks.„,, thOf":.#047....-IIT:Wbr4-';':::: ,.,:031:AliciiititiCirg.-?! _ - -FrAr*.,, .. at ..a..#.,40'' -',vo:014'''ffia,*7,41*-,,,T. :7.;.... • tt#10--4X44:..,-:•- ..--:...C,47417,f174:' - , instead '''tit :07*iiiiiiirlii-th0.4.-4!,=''', 1":420141*,i)*'§I -4:0,1:**:icii:it ....... •41.-iiiiiiief..iitioid4olittai,-,.,_igkiiititi— Ii-iiiii-i•-atil-s±.-: - '• iiiito-riii..-vo.iiii4iriiiieitike-- •'4ik,',44;ifiliont*fiii'•*ilifis.--r'e*-iiiiid7:: ._ . . - -:- „„•att'L'iriiLDrattkaia'Drt;-,taiaa-.•,::,4f*.*%.4;XO._rg.t.*.V::#4014:4:•:'*h,j*t'--:,4'.. .• • Coiiiidilize'lltiiiI40:%::.iittlilididAiiiiiitiikikiC litolriv.:3 -44--iiiid": - . 'Cr He='-.sought 0.1.01rAgicatiOn,i01:,51010**AV-40*';COPP4ITir intlik-ii00--#.''to,.:hois•ii.,itiiiii4ftl--- -;,43'24:7;•liiitiO*44,:',-',-04.-i,:ctpr:-• petting.'. AtOki-,Atitiiiaii*siiiiii:._;::0_4*inOiti:-. itilitifik*Si*,*:::-:•-tbibir, ...ivit.AATe:,--kf.o .-.14:14i.-'itiii-.*iiiiitt,ti,i-e- o-tit:,,iiiiiiiwtse.-iiii-. ..Jic-,:;,i-tioilite--ry • - .,:ajoit*iii.04*-:i,:.'..:Iiiiiiiii***4.::..',At;ijii,. 000440i*.:::-.-:tiv-**40::**:**:•"::',"...-, IiiitiO.iitai,-Iiiiiiiii. .'..:it.::,iiiiiiitiiiWilitd-j.ittiliiiii:,1-..• :'.:, - - --:-' . ' . -: • . . • . . . „ .- -. ::.: .:::- . ,.....,...... : : .. . .. ... - . . . • - • - ',11i4170-•*"..-8***Y0.11.400040.1v,41',.44t(X.41.4****1**.0,14:-. • '"iprocess. -.0,iiiiii0liiieloi:iit,,41444aot44- *41i.0‘,#,:::-.:person;: be •20.004iiii:. .•,:t4i• -..-•:iiiiiiit.ii•:.•„:„-Tfiiiiiiii4.0 :i:',5—'-osiiii4tie„,7*iiii*iiiiiii •--c0ii.41iiiitio.fs.*ENet; 4iii"-:::.iit,W`;iiiiiiiiii***.liiir:-:-4004::,:,..if s.,,,lipiii-.0.1iiig.:, • • --4g#ACial.','6.t=trit:,iiiiii,*liiiiiCiiii;ir_7310 .41,00:****•:-70*-9*144:_:04.1*:- - - • -;-1•43:04-44i-,,'Aii:44i.*.iiiittitkri,:fitol',Ottiriaiiiiii .- - .': • , . - .,Atteiidav•-:.Rettisit --. - •-•,.•- - . • . „... . . , . . .„_ • . . , • -.-0iiiiiitit Agenda it:iiii!.::::4•44,•-ii.;:-.•7i, :..04-iitiii-4' Ai*. 41-eihtfertig-- • 44;a44'ic::::--'.0*:.'i******::::,'ii*Y*.o#4aIt*i..i.W.:ki7z**l14io0***'-i:: with -'i*gritir-:---*),...::::thi4'ifiiitt:-Oitsit:diWttitttii, 'biiii.ljo'titii -. . • . '4t:iOks. .!..;*0.0)(;.6•:.? 1,ai".4:0-iii44.11••$--'7**01.14,-4';:14.41:***-1:.-Olik:- . . 'fttitio,--,::I. ,-,-tii*,•=:iiii34141.4.4.1704.0ii•-;'*i"400404kr:'''Agenda '..for: separate 41100#0400-- .':,-- - .. :. :':'.,,,.• • . . . . , ..„....„;..... ...._.,... ..,,_ .,. . .... ._, , . . Itio- followinig:20-4141-.44*.A*44-:‘, -.4410:::-.1411trelZiad:.:by: ,. . - Caiitioti-::'-aiiiiiif':**•..ii.iii*F;iiiiiCii- 40.1='.-40 Allittbd for .diiittiCiiti.efieiiii,--iiy::itieti,:::-Itiiii--4,.44-:•4'.5:' -..;:iiiid.-4:: . , . : . .... - : •. .. . . .. • • • ZILIZILZLIZETW,.;,----- --- ::::,-:- . .. - - - ---. - .:. - - : .., . . , :" -.. • ,, . :2: •OR $0 1006:-..:4:;,.'00110,tlitRipponstzow:. : -,---:.•i-:::, , - -. - . • - - • • .... . --1--.-1 Fittit.tAiiittioat.,:. -.•1440V---14,91.-: :%4P,Ailt::40001NC:.li011'ili• .. „.. .. . . -..' . • -'.. ...Mayor,:itatiriiidii', -:,. ... . - :-- . - --',.,,„ ': - : ' • , . . - . . . . . , . . ... • 2.2 SPECIALk- -Pitittati4TATIOI - -.::STATIVcCitAIIP.ION8',i44:-:i"-TIGARD HIGH' ittiHoOt:'.:ruuts4: ,01:00.t:',/:a4.0.11W,TEAlg*'.:BPIEVfPWOurrA4PL-111": -.- 40,timet'Ectitiir-- . -- •:-..!-. •',...-'.- ..- - •.-, . .. i. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .„ . , . . . , • • .::-. • . . . ... . . „ . , . . - _ ............ .. . CITY,;COUNCIL-XI:OM;''.MINUTES::- .--14P/.41.-:13i-',19931., ,...4,43iiait4 - •. : ,. .•• „: . . . .. . :.-...- .. ..... . • , . . . _.... • • • • • • 3. napata joillit .411.04• '1`41•1 .34000' 97224 rsusst.d puLl.d iron ,ta discussed 4,311 • • . • • Mark Link, 13050 b Valnut Street,-7441til o, Oregon 91223 • . teetttjeet-th*t."40,.,-**1.,"hte-,::;g044, -:bipfectd4--433e: tba-:,,otsiiiiiiaoa,:aotytenti4--,bk-*Wks City Council on March 23, 1991; -,approv a specific plan to:13004 • 0:•1410,-;collector through their property at sos. point in the:=:[t.iitete,.:- •- 2.. Kr.to begin negotiatjgn for the purchase of his Link requested that Council consider directing-staff ,property. Mayor advised that Council would discuss thi. issu. lt.z in the aseting under Non-Agenda. 4. ..„ UngELAVIna- Motion by 00fid43,9t._:*aaa xat aagaatiakt.by-:-...co!moiXtir-.11Awleii.,.•to readlre. iteaa, •aad:, 43 for further di ion. Tbe lotion was approved:.by •*- le***400.401:-;,•VO:te-,:,-Or-;06tittail present.- • • Motion eacONIgv.:1)Y-12.4.?i0.141,0*i •reellew-t • . to resova *. •tOicliirOthe-s-,ritti.e0Oleicel:.• •":ttie 1000.0*,irae. , ..„ ..„ , .„. approved by •-tiOani.,100114.---Vote.:OZ-•'.CO:t;n014:: 14711,lento • - " ' ' `"' • • , Pit042104.00'r-,aa :Ttaa'•:4. 4-•-: City Adainistrator Reilly adjisad that an lajaaa1:1:tieSq.41(''6f.:.-**1:-solid vast. haulers' •tat.s.ñts of ncos and expenditureg was conducted. Th. rats of return experienced by each of the haulers was sufficient as acif led in-,tbiatt !*gtatiaaata.':10 .t,b; .$0::"4idj*****t-,t4-:;the•:$01i01:ever,wait* _photo:04,-by- 'tetra.i, raised, theta the City will hay, to•$.**0.0a0. - • • Discusgjon ,04-:.';'4*-;:•4 00.1440ick,Isaa 1st --tba 00110k. :t0.01041 •seatings at• .the .. •= • • .,„ basis. After • brief ;,.._ staff- :keetk-, of :prepare: tapes to .•,.„. Discussion on rtes „aekect, -ejty — , Engineer questions on the asrita of !:-asphoxt, versus• Oaaaaat.,.-•. • . Aftr discussion, City Engineer was asked to prepar. a report outlining fiscal ispact inforsetion relating to asphalt and cesent- Also, Counajior Schwartz flased several roads in other citie, which war, constructed with concrete and be suggested t4.14410 Citielv,toivalikOC:vhVAlledfiAsci004,--teijus••i;:o0h4ratt. CITY COUNCIL ;paGit•-,1- • I 1060.on: Cain l r twit ' s obtkl.d.. ,Co cilor!4. rt=. :to • rs*ovs:.tsars nt 4 6a "`lor c i erat ±o it t't2r;April :1993;i,:co ncil: u ni�w vote<of<: ai3`_"pres+ft`. anti ai`iraa. .:a.A -ins= Motion councilor ge i lr:.` _- bar,`Cc 040#.:,;"Bch$I ts' to_.approv <at e Cos i t;Agana:: rs;Itea 4 'aatiou',va�c. approval-hby..a: una : aC ui :vote-=o Cou l' present:' Approv ,.;Count l:1!iiilutae:; ltar04-,16 and%:23';: 1 93 4.'2' :R�a�ivo->.ands:iTila.`�•.r! . S r `:Council' Calendar, *te . Rieiviev ., : I[af ?i-:: 5, •:4:991;,. iiiorandu* frog Acting Publ c. `iiorks >di ctor to city Miii3 i stratorts x_ >>_ .. Y.. .. _ _ max• _ =fis tiid:;% sets '''?!P.�il°"2 1993 •<c:, Purcbaas`_:Uaing`�Fo i --'' �.r. , aaorandu* lroi :Chief=,ot'"Pol ce to°_ r. arid;;city v Comic :.4-:3 >Ilpprave Poll y lak ng Taps:Recordings � net i • Meetin ti lva Table aii't. a .i. 1►uti1. • 4.4 Accept ing ldfe :Sery ce ";Grant'.: F nids? • Greenitpacea' Grant) and. Aut tiorizing tips Maiyoir-to Sign, X4.9 Approvef.rR solution x e o , ... ogniaiiigtCra�t_ �wenu�e ;(lwtzo. Groeniipac sy, and ''Increese Appropr dtioos to P but • F. psnditt rs t of.:Grant:Funds.- _:Re�irolutaon_110 ;.93 14 Loc •1:.:6 ah�coi�tr�d►c'ti��isvi� 8�a►aiKd:�: :a: it Awa d =`t irtac tt%:Street' :(Set.over=to;::4 27/93') - . H�d:211�#t�S '::•`:'Vehicle s::Purcha t� '';"Cab and' is`to• Co�nwrcia2 8gdy Bu ders: y 5. ,OR3D :j fT iQil'.'`93=tt00 ;; :BILLBOARDS 406414'':A prop al :to"aaei is sections 18; Z a70:and 1,8:.114 090;,: ot,the:Conu pity:}Deva opaent'"Codii_�tfl.=;l st' bill ioards uneder thie' cats~o of aligns: :pr_ohi it .; (-18.114:.0'70.11) ;arid; ':repeal< provi`s'ions `• `al ow nQg co st ct `on of: • 'billboards 18 >11 .09Q A 1);:: APPLICABLE REVIEW GR TIRIA Ste d � °pl'a ninq.:Go la 1 _aid,2'1 Cci prate Es vs Plan_=`Pol of �s'1:1.1-:.a°,:: 8..'30 and :18.1 4. . • .a;. Puhl`io:.hoar ng7:was'_..oponed. b. Theirs rare no=declaration. or:challenges : c. Sen or PI`annar De rr�dortl:;;'pr s ntits the iitalt Spurt.; • Ttis ;=potent al 'tor;;additional:::iii 11b rds: exists; under currant (rod. provisions. CITY=;COUNCIL_1lEE'PIIIG MIt�ElTE8' =:':APRIL;I3 r.:3993: PAGE 4 • • • •• •_, . , . - r • a j d. Publ"io -tastisony: • Aar._ Pau ::ai vi d;' a _2 .tifd- t�ii;::.4�ol creed w.igbborhOod>AUociatian Sr:tut#f lei; • • a�ctiatr _., ;wt�,1llbq�iiMrds;�atitrq �rta= - •. �la�n�dscA7 i tti::%' lboaird :`.ai `_advised ° ...__R'{ xas+�i : hatrful • :,t �rydesiiALic,and at t�a�r1 'iof'Yth. • City.` 2 dd tic- y , 1 1 =#1� -iisiaAted• ;t.�it;�� �ltioafds- a `.ra .i d',because= R f their''..us ,Tb »fr.. rgu t-.usiid`.t_o.contiitii =to i til-is�=billboar s=fir = 411'044- .b1►: ul= Mligliriiii ' :! 1 -j,_: on.N r"Ms; .; 1400V �t iat.:billboard L,war ar `� :tom:; ,►. . • • �i'lI -a . ::DSfl ck '�: : side rt':,, of:F;.,LsIGa'•:` 1/�JO:. • business''Owner44:' -H .0. Zl?;'';and�:.SChOl' adv.ised:-i: . .agreed_ _witt : Xr :Pautl .-' Hi: Ord lied..of". hir;= uirpr s, _t: t th `Tf' t`o s_=ail to -bil oa�rds :-41* • ovarcoas... aind.: thatµ .:bil2bo'ards.:-' _one iors '-T gaird nfaysriibly rto>>�,th:* .;;:Way<'aired au"= Lal t sw.go • •: ehr s- Hart aan.. of .Aakarlt,,Signs:„suggestedi:.'th t�._the . . .Ti d.; .Coda” tie: ch raged' ?to '!+Qa >,.. ':aiid' . replan N language..> Tti 010 w.0..t4 lean.t t thi sir it ngih:n sr: 0f;.:signs ;would':%'be alloilSd .tv `rMa<a nl-F::r b0!W.ver _.,'the : ti -�! �g..ins'���ayauld`.asa=.:_aavad=�aio`:�udcthar:;Tigaid:,•lo_caf__iri� �or • Brian..tibia.off-.Obio' ;Sign.::notad;'his:,_lakil bueihess • had".:dz st d`fox:_:any years :;'M 'sdvisia==`e .has rorki it #.aathe C ty;':whSfl obj_ ct a�n "`niirS ra sed:on ttie`:orientation of`ons..of his,;signs K r:.';Obie saiid ris wadi-..,-ticyingg tcs,.. bu ld, c_ redibil ty; _ice;,. bi ing . cooparatiws. rith': `eT# a d ' `lie >'rsferred ao .#.rigs; • Fidsral :gov.rflaout bS ut f cation -aat':_aid :.advisad°. • that billb arils s gn '.:ar. lrlowed n ,c ictei# x<-iones In,rospon =to-t e staift i po t w bs. id .BE d not. see. tha: .potential: <for '36' . additional. i�ign. in Tigard:_ Mr: : it said, ;than :large. :invssti uft, hundreds, of f.-thousands'of dollars 'in,thar fiv =sigruE• •hs'has.' :Aa:. d;a2iis- spr its signif cant ate - to,ttie_;.c ty ais assessed'''on the pzop tty-:tair::rolls. •. ltr, ' i 90 ,-iiportshome d. :p cunt of tt i%;=biis si as s:. llbaards liay csfl.t f. a CITY couiv L`` tilers vimnivras ::APRZ 13 :1943.'.∎■ P,4411."5 • • H. advised • that ha supports *i_Wk proposal .uqqsstad fro the Acwiy- representative. „„. With regard to the gon1ty objection to people pree.. to tstify at the • no great ''! . ' counity response of -cpi*:;t0:::; • ” Mr. .0bis ital.d.,hs was willint•-.tgi cooperate with the city. a. :044644 --000140t5 : - councilör ...1.r asked for clarification Ofl SitaiLtS4-r,:a04, •: : 4:i:040404.4&:'#7.f.4***0144000-14-410000-1 - like cowparing "apples AndicfraWarji,:.;.;:Tb.-1.4.*TPF dito4;14odilt,-.:*00040:80:44#jvAni*****14.:. to the tkuow.-:'4414.**-74044:100:->-.-...;04-W as also adviled#P10:441.4*60.:14*,'" • • 040:014 '',•*41:* • • littx.b,4id.'.'rtiii**f'****- -09:4 :41.i*OW0.014*, • to billboards. The Mayor qüsaticnd• • . strong opinions vith regard to.'::-'$111b0**da .A$titiii400;.414114Wil.40000440X0100.040W4r9.!;:: 44434..: •on the di.tiflctiOlt .:fttet*****14:•-.1130.******Eft..0**,.::00**04'.iitio:** .•Councilor senior Planner .v.rsdorff that about 182O billboard 10-504* have .t400':041.014.: Two billboards are currently under construction. Approval of the propoi.d ordinance would prohibit any additional -.- - There was discuS$icfl on the cap and replies0 Senior Planner Swsrsdorff advised • . was not covered uiidsr the proposed ordi "CS. This option, • *040 111411U: would 4i4414,. 4402: . 4 decide:t45:',Ouratia. , . • , - • _CITY, COU CXL. . ,KEETX1IG iIXNl7flS • • f. Start' x $adad tit t lb«w�t 'to reRptal fbi isicrs in #hat allows inboards y, yam, billb� i under C pt =v;-18. T4 070 r 1i as a sign T`�obibi °.. • • g. Pu lic l earir g rani closed. ideRretio Councilor Hunt :• ►dv s d»sue':;would: support; : , •proposed ord :�iauca would ,by wi l l i g to plor� the _cap 'and .re i1aco-w- proposal at-;a.later-'fiats. Councilor P.ss<lar said she also supported th. proposed ord nonce ass t. advie.d sh�s has= erd fr n a number `of ,c .tiSeh ob j noted to billboardis• Counci lor`�Peisslatr eaid�she wt►uld be' Mill to i raves x w 'dap and' replace propo a s wel :. tigatte�' tbs Councilor. ,Hawley; advised=. '' hat; abs *ould • • supl ort the propos d ordinancer a�ran nt. sb ; . _ eons rated that=it brae not necessary to receives taa�tisany frost a great number Hof:people r► tfi regard tote`roprs.sntative taetiaony givi by`ur. Paul. Cowicilor°Hawleysaid chang.s addressing planning issues treys► being ai d ,would sbe noticed}oust tilts. . ;S referred to Bann Sfforts �piitri .�s �� in Ti . �egax fi�to �d�iign Etandar"ds.. . . Na or . d. advised o 'n is Y., � :�r_ rie�; �,no:�plei�ip =�l�r�abt` • �wcis -ate. �£ 14.: 't .Ylt�. :OrdfJiC ,. Hq liOt4i . ; rJ* . with spending tea aavch tip acoo�wadatfng tom. .•addrraiasi-n g•concerns and connsnnts received lroa. • a;-minority-;:viewpoint sir'the:: unfty: 1 ;OR I NCE 110. .:9;3=1 '., - 11N Ott) 10Ey: Rti .-1U18ND: • DVI8IONS f OF THE COMMUNITY DBVELOPMDIT CORN S TION 18.11�4yy-'.�.070 TO Anti SUBS_SCakfdj .•x ; T1OrPi'to ttiftt� $SIB <;,A D yt f`S � ON .�3 1 4.090 Ai., • SUBSECTIONS i1-4.WHICH PROVIDES HII S. j by=Councilor:vScbxarts, vrscsoarrxc ed by C+ouncilor =y Burt;:ao:':approve Crdinarscsaio., ;93,=t2. Ttiu notfan approved by:a=;:mat on 4:=1� .�votar`�ct Iesent. Co ` ' P. ( }u�cilai��,",�1� sil+ii`= "-�: vlir :and--SchwaZtz w w:-•, s :Hunt: otad: ;ayi. s:-,It�tj!o Girds-;voted • NeY." • • • :-l[ZET iIG MINUTES - AP#iL:,i13 `199'3 i • a '-; B mss • *,ua 3 ^o,.....-70: r � rw � �ti}sti � ,y�tq hh i z ! A £ � t � A a c hment 4' } 1' � , , • xv , t } > ;', .f?=.. ,•. , f °" r o: C I$sTCII 1« :7=41.40:2;01004 - President Pyre]called thee Ming to order et• 7.30 PM The ie.ting was ihetd i;the `Tigard Ciro#c Canter:- - -; dI3125;;St(�lll,Sovleva►rd • S 2 :POLL ' LI: PEBbT: :Presde a �r*r C iss �iiecs 0.1- ::. r 'ali e,' Holland, 1100t / ands, $ s tz ABSSNT iea'' a onars'•>Sapo ta,u'Santos, ,and 8chrab■ STMT . Seior Planl er Dik }Bearer nBof Senior Flamer :Carol = ndsU , - Aa►s start 00:* y Ofer{;- and A Ling Planning Coaaaission Secretuy • ° . . Diane Jelete�rka.. • Cooa�~iiiii-6 r Castile>aow*d and';Cas,aissic r=Boone seconded,toy' approvae the sines es for February 22nd�aeetinq asp w rite Notion passed by aaajority vote of„ Coiiissioners• present. Coai�nfasianer�Schaeitz 'abstaiid . 4.. P ' 4Vt C ..• There .were ado.coet�iunicationsC:-received for;;rtiis -Ming.• 5. PQBiIC: 12G- .... ° ' '.-' ,.• '. ...L'_ �3 ' ia. .• 'I._:....,•..„., _,.. (1T-ra 4 1`� 4.00'S) A propasakl-to'tasend sections.18.114.07Q and418 Y 12.4�'Q9Q of the Coow�nunity.Deireloo nt��Code to{lis't.bi1lboard$,�q rr the category :at `signs �prohibitsd t18 11!1:070- N) and , ;repeal- . provisions 4aliowing- . :-'aonstroction - of billboards'. . (1,$ :1'14 ,090. A.1) •APPLICa8I:S RSVISiF. CRITERIA: .Statewid'a- Planniiig,::Coa s '1-:::and 2•;..Co reh}n*ive Pla i,Policies'-1..hl:4 1.1 2, 2 .1 i, ,.a id2 . • Senior.:..Planner:.=Dick :,Bewersdoiff'.reviewed: -staff'=s ,:proposed: aatetakent to the Development.Code which ould„prohibit further,- billboa'rrd construction`.'in the City while .;leaving.-in, place'- thosec.biliDoa rd.,; a `ready constructed. r PLANNING -CCI(I,$SZON NIMUTBS<.-AMarrch -8; 1993. - :Page) I • • • L UBLZC":TBSTIHONY -"Briany anf=Obie;.::=2081'�ted MMu co construc six:billboards gna along Rfghway 317 is =felt the signs, v re, of value tot the Cif t{ He xst thin rQ sail. r -r dJ!z tG�i � 4r: p po, is a3 resulf of an article�,t,n-,the ? gard,"�liees' " :and Trot necessaurily a concern vof the bua�ii ens �cc�iii�uni"ty and citizens "auippo t relating billbo ct°aigins brit not. prohibiting t m favored- x morat'or�um FYI ;construction until. .r;.egulation for .spaicing,:: 'aise, and location :+Mild,`-be" propcseii- • • Will Deneckik* 2665 SW Glen Rd , Lake ►avego� ;track$ In theagbnta . .tip 9703e,. y� Tra_ sl�'y row • office eft Highway 217 add -travels'"= Highway X217 �:egula He s: y. >atappot�il - staffs s- lY �;atra�s I recom endation to prohibi t Zany aieore billboard sip felt they ire a a'rrea us sight. a stated t othar jurisdictions ouch as Lake Oswego and iii1 o v lle prohibit: billboard signs Me felt` billboard sign detract frog the ge of i'gard: He -supported't ik ng 'act; n to have"ex st.i g , billboard 'signsf rem ved: •PUBLIC': OSSDr.: • Commissioner core stated, that he hasp t ext i approached_' - numerous individuals about. ly iklbo d sig:.irns' y" the uq bi ar q going ap. along Highway 217;. If he would known.t ey wer ted by Code he would "haGve.done :some h g stoner to -p ohi bitt thhe • rh =c _i_�.-,_n:.3 `found qs.0l ,'. billboard:- • outs billboard si s coul `to ck it ., 9a. _ d�.qo in, they decide sti to Tigard. Now ae need to stop'=construction,:tries " heal .With the ones that have been.constructed • Commissioner•Eyre,,..Holland;_zBoone".. and':5chweitz-::t staff's ,reco endation: * ."C4pilllss ones Hollaind aoved`.an COmmissione 'aBoone'second .-'' ,forward= Eons- Oxciinance 1!a►ex' nt ZOA'--93 0'092=aka City:'iCo nc „ :supporting staffs recd endation. • ;Fort"her::x diacusswion": fi' lo+iet `. regarding r'�roval of �exiYstinq<. bii�lboard signs, • { ...•.2 ilk.. '.i ♦ . -_'. �;'> _ y x.=--':_ .--' A staff :initiated aaencbrent : - ` t o!=Oregon. t t y Package iatend�d Ito sdclies sSCate _nandatt ud:to"i}evalopmrntatar� ids�related=s transportation faci=lities. Proposed aa�endaents are r�u�esz ,a acid the n"fora will not be listed'in c etail. Co�rprehensive.." :Plan. plume I (Transportation`rove ' titory Rcpg'rL} is:zp- opose 4 ppot.4INC:JCO!![ISS i �mtoot S.,--lard 8 - '°Z 93' Pa` 2 . ;Page y2.= • • • be — - .• • . •••• • .. , , - - -. •-:,• • • • varietsi.:014pkoloOmitit4t4idia-ds• • • • - • ,• ,.„ for. local streets. . '-•:410e41410.ete are alzO proposed. to VIEC • following Comity 001100004:;.:_ctide.,#.41igeti#7;'1- = 0101*1:61030,... jp41:***, *440.: (00=14i0.i ':4.iiii#4ii,4,,iiit',4.4004:itte.00.411(04**),4 "1:740:t.**,18.40k. Circulation); •Chapter 40..4*0: • _ 00iiikiviiitOt,.400,114104; ` *04,Chapter 1414.64: (Street Standards) . . • rn addition, v slow:at:4a .---/aaa,proposed...aeveral 'other aMndmentg•• Com.ity Development Code chapters. These other ' ents ..•14;t4:**:0474.7.,:*t0t4ted,:g,:cAl**11,01,14.***41:0 and relate to Mini*u parking space requireáents tor various 'Land uses,, parking 'apace d1enaiona1 standards, drlvt -up service • • • • :window ataoking=•,-requ f local' -stróet iproveent .1.8tat$414.44**biA44000001,4:7,:ilepoormta The Harch '8, 1993, Planning 81.6n'..healeii*"18:-IntendeidL-40 • •'" the 'initial Planning Coaaiasion hearing On the proposed 7one additional Planning coaupigs ion •forwards recommended package of proposed amendments to the City Council• for a hearing on adoption of the amendments.hearings are not yet scheduled. ••.:•These additional • . "• • - • *:tgt:tdA:jitit,i;:fiult*:*Wt*i*a*u*,:,.,44x-*ot4*:jq,.att-ktn:::toto:* • • • r.6,4042:-• • .•OAR(Transportation Planning Rule); Comprehensive Plan Policies -. and • - . •-. .• • .. • -.. "-.. . • . .9.1.3 • • --- 000x!..4qati•Ot',1:14•.:00:tiOitOt• -*do'.*7-ft"--i the Code „•. • . „ .•.„ ,-• :r.4i44-•40i'W=1e:i**00-pheo.dipti.v.fi•,-****tti. .• • Planner Offer, ,explained t4ati., there:. -*a. a second hearing• 40004040,:got:Apt*rf more of a, public' testimony. • • "- -• • . . • • , .• :•- ;i00LW.*41.1$0)4VI: • •c• 1- • Anthony, ''• •41T- O97007- • •• „ w explained that • liwatoritikimatery:40.#r:,:.40*-04,:w:::10:t4rittska0:,4pp-.0x :1143`;:. AVOOkt- the new Street--;:•de' 64.1ituL,An...,:defaigninf-80141-VkAiOna:•iiithOnt.. compromising the Cifialeityrotthe"40bdiVialon aii:;.,,a444t4op they *Old decrease surface run-off 3.Aiuttii:oey;; • • . " • . : . • Feiry . • . ditfiiehtv-aittziohov • Pr:041v Co124tSioec MOO lc 199,3. Page":3 . • , . . .. • • .. .. ,_,„ .... T., , . ... .. • . ..,.:- ..., of Chapter. 2 a***14*-4irettliiieltA64-:•460-"c:-be•kielete4-ed:--- Commissioners agreed. • , : • , • Discussion,:--,-foIroliiick. re4ardieg-F. ,different' ittreet widths, ., .:'iiiittid4riti,s4-.'*e*.e*titi,,?#:14koi-*mt*-,),:-,;-::pIL-aqt.etz;14-r, par.„:parktng.along, the.rt-ttea'V'i:"101" c-z-itiiia-Icf ittiiiair., , . . . ...-. :: .:. , •..... . ,•-. •-..i, -• . • Assistant Planner Jerry Offer explained hoic,*-AtiodignAitiffida#1: manual lifipi4d:iiiiik-s:tii':,.y4fillitintto,*:',1,..#4':X1.10:--'c04.**;-..'4+-440,4446. - :**44.0.44i0f4.4-iiii41:Iiii:--t4i****-4,4,:**404:444.1404k 444*.j.:***4,'._ '-.044i1‘,5,-***ii54*4447,tb:C.41.f..$014-0*A#71!'..a_.PO4-4* 0:44411eV*-',.i: , . , -::•:;T-,..i:-.:- -.,..,:-.--.: ----;.-..-::- ..- .•:.:.'.!... -• ,.',,.-:...,.. .,..,....,:.,.:. ::...„-...„..-:: -..,:.L.,:: ,' ...,..., ,:,..._,.*...-..#.tiiaili*i*.ioiilibif,:,:. 4)Pha:04:0::'::C06/4.4004,,:40g.4171,2-...:,..,,.. 15,. 04\-v, „...,..=. • •'..." . - . Mille tlijit7:s?:--,jiiigak'-.ctC::4.---oe ;-:g***tf1::tyi';:-4;fiy-007-:. code,:--2,1:0#1*-ale...- d.t-Iii*tiiiiioit:***-Ciatitl,*4-.0.4*--,-J.:.*04.-iii4i,.*.iii*,441,*•41,40:044-*1:0,;, - oiditii-4-,,;':Iiia:Vii;44.itilii,:lit,*.iiiiiii.t.;!:iiriali :-.'.iitit.:**-404-.:foiii-'.*UftS:::• .,..„.... ..,, 6e.-"Pit—-ikiiiii:'16411':iiiiiit.AAiiiutrAiit-'&14-,.'lpiaiiiiV-,-:--'':-.'' - ---;',----.:---. ::•-; : : 4., "Further ,40-,0884:0its:,,*$„11*40:--:to: ..4.044::-',,,.-sop „F - ,3„apper, .:carol, • 1.aiilititia:4:#ifliteUe0:::thatt*-40:ekehe,004-yii igx*.0,.-40.044tii:.,i',,04 '-••••::-. ::'. ,..:: `,.italfeliiii*ki:':.',=t4 ----"-Aie-":'44iiiiiiit4-.c: b*iii*:-*: =-:-0:wkii,.:::.:...:06:41 .1i.x,';•:,ii*::**ik,...:,1*..0. -, ::: •:-:,, . .. Consensus Of *.yi*• ..tio,04:'- —goo* .1.0,-4,iiii-e,,:'„t:p..- 4,::;ijiji:--oic.)iiii:ta t4 ,Ire'•---,•-:: .i.i.,,, S4410, .:00ilisi.::t5010.00.0;:**e.",*44::;*404":***-1*.OPO001:41, 44144#8';',444.'' . :,, •, 4.■iiiii&f*iiiik-;:iiiiteicI*ii,:--eogiii: e6itoofF:00:041.?.--'cia01.--1414aggia..n.; 46:-,sopitt**-09118i01.*%---5;-. .,.. , . • - • ,. ,,, .. • : . , , , . , ;, *--. ,'-fiirthEitii-,,. ....iiiiicussi64 ::teiAkditigl . litainclik#1:-::,design : _manual,;:: ..oatitnOte-EXP..4.killigr;11..0140.1(344.00:00.;',3)0P9.0044fAxf:10ti„elP., fig.,uses,: arid:':Att)L'reqiii0atentip . .,. „. . . . . „.. .,. • . .. . .r, ,,, .' .. * 1,104010t. ,Copirmed-,titi April„ 5th. .. : . - : .-.:. - ::,.;-.,: • . I.:1,,,`: ...,::-.1 . ... : J. . .•-.:. ..,.. - ., ' 4. ,OMILTt-$1114.0w44. , . .: ... ,. : ...... , . _ . .. . ..„ . • Planning Commission requested staff initestigtite-:411,4:t:Opv4:4 7 be 'done: 40 Ot7;sroe#404..;existing billboard: .,:.:**11004,:: • 411401.3:46*. !_tY.,;-=1***.144:',14ttf#1*40.•*44i"/V4444%V.Sa--- .. 1 -, . tiaailiiiiion',:-:4iiiiadizitr:',:lalic01144, annexation..: I „_.--------.... -,- -...., ...-_-__.:,„----: .-, _ : . .• : . : ... . Y.:•• :liD40# 0f.,.9:AC*•,* ,• . . : -, , , . ..- „ . '• •,.. :'''•'' '' , • : ' ,;'==p At*: 1•3ij01, .. , , .•.. : ., . -„,- 4-” ' .:-: , . • :: Acting: Coto ion: Secretary ,, . ,.. . AT :, -- .. .,-... .-- 1..::••: • : - ,•: - . Aff -•-•,,, ,,--,' _,.. ...olf,f.,71271%.?, ---,:•-- :::: -,. . • : . ' -, :■57 .- •1 es 1-61,a ti- ,:, . .. / • , . ...... .. ,. , _,......r. ... . .,.. „ ...,,... ...•:,7.,-- .. , _ pLANNI:pw:rokftit$SION MINUTES -,:l•-SarCh:-.11r- .1:-.99 , .-: ,-,-,.--.. - : . • .Page 4-.. . , , .. • - • . • • -- ,,,,..t.•;,*,67,14‘,.., ;....‘`,i,.14.,,,,,--::z7.177----,`1 ----,k;'••'-_-:',_-.:.4,-L'.7,....:71-,-'53,,,,.,=.,....'4.1 ......._,,.- --,...•,-„,-,--.F-m,„,-;-•••=t•;-.i.., -_,-,•,•••••,:jo.,',4?...,...,.v.1,„--04q:',.5-177-„, -.4. -1-v;.':•---,-.,.,:"f.,---,,w-,,k4.,?:. °•--44----,': outacnInern:3---, ri,-.7.''),°-•;',,,;(•,-;::::-,...-1,a--4.- „t ';-•$- •••'.,,,t.):2-,,---•-•,44-zit- ,r- •• --.Ti-.1.,--•.•b:4,:,,7.!.••,,,•-,7;-•-••-•-•;../..i 0-•-:,-,-..4:r•••:,••••7,-,-;- -,-,y.- ,:'.,--,,,,,;.--•,*,,,•-,...;::- -. - , ... , . • .•.,-,.! rrk:i '...L.,,'r....•,.. t '::,2'-i,l'Vi2ti.,,tA 2.;i-.,,,:_0.,:jo..ii,,0412A.44:11t.w.,,44,..x,if.'„%t,..It. ,15;17X.(71k.otio-....,:tr, ,..ves4.„..,i ,.:. ..,-.-:.7..-.,-,:...,..-,-;---,,7::::-:.` .I .:7:.,-c .:. .' ,' '' ,,,•.. .4.1:, .,,;,.‘s.,;.:,!-.5-,-1$-;',,,..--.1-,,,,,t4., ,.----,,-.tia,-.,,,,, ,z,s---t-.-.,--..,--.4,.3.7, --,1.0■--,t.,-.;-,-.4-2, . -4,..*-: i;',, ,..",,l's tia, -i,':!..-, i".*....t.izat.,-',..A.,...-...... '''''r'-,•- . ',':-,'''f,':f':'i''37;'.-'''`1'14,.7,-1"-i i;'7'7'':?''4',.e4r:Ve,1,V:''.-1''-''A'ir'Xi's,,,,,-..q'tg'.-'?:'-''!'':''-'''.,-',::'V-;,'":*:4';%','f.7:47.,:.,-.7.t;g-.';'i,!''',.,7,;:;:-;It""`e 1,,I°IT-.-D.',-..`1;-,.,.:,.4.:1v,4..4-.7:k...ii.*iit.l t:Pk','s'4'',,,. n' i — - ( 4 '.'-,E'l;';,:-'.*::,.1.7.r.,'.,''°.;;.,`.n','..t,1,l e1W•,'.,"V,.'.?',,,':44":, , . . . .,. .. • - .1 . ., - -- cm :QP.`,2....nc.1111W-,:: REGON• . . - ... . -. :. • ., !titept1iO4C,Irl)0', -91.i. la---,,,, . ,. . .• • ., . . - •,-.-- •:4141:40iiiiii'aii. liii.;',:',*:1000.:.--iltaiiAttotlisir-:OP linv--A:01914r4'11:::W111,9p.mir coos-. (. --'''--- '--- -- ielitif"ficrAivi'-'itiesintliutcricisult:':,iioitistiliniaoAlizogi)Liw.,:70-••' : •Triipti...._.”t::::';inicitztrict-Itait::09.0:::.-*.:.,iSUBSECTIONS ' 1,=4 ,• -111ililf•: ,PROTIOSS rag • BILLBOARDS. -: , . . . , _ • . •• ..- _ ., _ .., ,_ ,-, . , • - - . -, , _ • • • ,- - . , „. . . _.. ,. , . • ,.. . , 4:11.1.------- -Tha •city, Tigard - vidii -it ilidialiiii;,:ti*;,riaitiiiiii:-'th. :Ciaiiiunitivi -., . • -,:. _ '.,... 3.,,: ,,..; : .,--.!. -, ,,, , , ,..... .:,.V',.., '',' .',.,,----- S'.",...' if'-''',', Deliiira01414:: Cods 72::":1)04944.0;.,4':, :7- ::: -'' 1 '4/PTO!.f-- . 4g1• '':ploerf. p# koliiiiioit****y..of,-*IiaitO414f.t.::;:v40.0, i n n,.. c.'"i'k-''o..-.-'i...-.m.:.'.4'- .i..,i•:,i.,..l..'6i'-j--%i•,•,•.i„a'l. i.-.,'i—t•'P..,:.,i...-.a nt-ii.,i..• O,,-t i—ii—i.-,-se.io,. n r--,e,------da--,-i=,1•ed' t----h-.-a-1'.e,at' .--f.-t--,.l recoisndation git1*k1111*P- 1404.1g 074' )40414 4993 ; 199 -1"5,I , F,.-,:':•,r•!,:.,--: -: ,•:':- :' : , - - - ', :-.- - '• ,. -:i.. ,,•,..„:::.--„,•----,,,,-,,,,;-,-„,,;.-,1,4,-.-,,,-.:-.•-?.:-• •,...--, -,,,,-..,-, . .: .-..:-..:•,,,.'•-,,-,..•:-.,:- . . .. .:.,,: - ,-.:-...:, • : .::. "-1.1'..:-.-,•,;',..-2:::,--------'':;_,.**„blii.:iioe-L:2r9or4;i:iiiiiit:411*-_-.thekaiiiipclmin .:...0.064•:-;irt-afgfFt•-•• . ':•::'''''';''"'',''''''it ,'reiiiiiiiiiiii- ,-iiiiiif-46iiti--.'iii'-',41tiiit:ii;•}4Iiiiiiiii•4!?Giiiiiiitip',-iiiti,.-:: " • -:',.• : ::::•..:::;-: :: 'WHEREAS, ' iii ''of Tigard 'finds that there has Ilaarr,a,Vablic','•outeryr , banaiiiinii:, -?thii.-':, proliferation,:.---nualbor',-;•:-:apaainT:.404::, ,iat.bi#psi• -:1ag, billbiiiii-datf,-and:-.. -••,-)„,. ,,:, ,- ..:, „.• .,,... . • :::•••:: . ... :. .. . ... . . . .. , ''- tiii".-dii,k-,64iiiiiiiiV:.hold ,-a:public •haaring,,,•'on"-;:,14prik:13', ',1493•,,Ito, • iiiiistaik.::00:i'lliiiiiithiiiitt.;.:: . -:. . 7 -''''' , ,• . • .7 ''- ,. ,:n:-. '..';, : • '•.7- ,. .: :', . ,--•••:.:, vat-,CITY OrAriGARp',4141,44Ns,;,A8\-•gorzows,.:, • , , . • .„ -• . . • ,-, . , , : --, • •-,..----- - " . , • ' ., •,,;,•,-;-;--,,--,•-..,..,,-•:', , ,,'•-_•„..-•.:•,.:i , .:::,•,.:,- '--.,- .. •-•.: •-•:,.., ---1_„.. ---,._---.-.-1-.:•.l,,,,.---.4..*:,...=•=ciiiiiisliaiitiiiiii-..iiiiiiiii,-,.Iii. . C''-- -- - SECTION 1. :Th.14.:YAOPRORriZtIP:IZItra4.9,11.1.AP ,W9.114111,+,...-,:,.., ,' ,..,... -..:-:- ,, . ;--:-._ ..: ,,, '' ''}irdajitf-:,4iiii'..,--:- ,'N-fa'A-cjiiii-ikt:-fii 7,11.1. ---addaitl'Iii-:::MUSHLEML6'.': Language ho • • - - Aitiotilid:;:ig.:11hcoirit,,iii- EsRacorrs1-„; '-. -, : - •. :,:-,'- -7 , •. :„• i ' : : • ,... . • - .. ,.. ...,,,. _ ,.. , , , . . - - • y,-„.„, •.,. • .-.... , ''' ' '-1T.:'1;'''',,, -': - - - .- - •,- • '•: '-' -'Iltaii.,:-- ,-ails. ',tits, - -: • This dictinono*.4,tialx-lic--i:W.,F4'sfe,,I04,),*,#t...,..r,. 44i,,,.. ,py.,,,...,,,:., eatin6il, 4io*.iivAit0,1*.:itiik-or,i :-.1ioic..poitinizitlylilui-#--gkx-4. .-441F4,: PASSED; By rn,..i.e:rt- - - vote of all,touno .:., • , 44;i-A.rititiE' ' 'ti''=:.:k 7•%10447-- .:-:•;"....4 a4':'tii:'Iiiil .S#:::404)14's4 411;.,':#01$4:"'-';fr;#41 i •..''.. iiiii iof l-; " 1).•::::.--.4'.:::'• . _.i :3:99:1,-;,,::- -,• • • : ,, , „ - .:, . , . ,.•.,., . ... . • .._ , C) , . .. . . . , ....,.. ..„.._ .. : , - .. . . . . ., .. , :: •-• .: i - ,:-Ca --tlitif,:i_,whiiiit4y.4.;:.:,';.-pitrt , .-,: . ! • . .•--. -: •:•••• ! . , , . . • : . •. - • ........, - APPR-0,V16:, flue::::11--4ziti-,f7:',' --.-2-..d'ai.--;0 '#i..,- ,-.- -... ..e,...I9 .2-:-:- , . : ..-::--,!:.: :----- .:: • • ... , , . . . . . ..-. ..; ,. . • .--,.--.-4, . - • • - - ,-- - - di. • .---':4 --- ''.'-i:Pg140-t:.." E - • ,-:. ..'- ..-, _ • ,.. . ..-..., . . ,.--:• ,... - . . . - .• - -- - . : .: .• - A:PPrOlted : t:e p).ziis . . . . . ., . . • ,, , .. . ....,,. . . . . .e.-. ' • .-- - • .• - . • titif-f-AttOntaYT::7i'• -:-I"-r-: • „ • . , . . :.: _,, ,::•. :.:,,:.:••-••••=7-,::- . • .•- . . . . . . • - •• ',..44.7.:1,11, :::•.. .-,.. . . „ -_. : ,. . • . . . • r•: •Ltuitii; ' -- - . .- ; :•"'.., '':• .:-•- : ,: - . . . : . • .. Pa ,• ctik.I. '... . - . - • . • P:•, • • • . _ • . : : . • : ..: .. ,_ : :: •, • . „ . . . • . . .... ......:44.---..4."-,;:trriir-T.'"7,'V."-it_;1..,:,.;•,,..*;"4,4r,--T7r,t;;;-02.!:7;.-6.3?-fge-g_-_..11.--._*-„,:,-,--:.,-:-,..,..r4,--,-..,-,-,-,c,„.. -•,....,--7....4-e... ....... ...„....,....-":,„,...,.. .. .. -. _ . .. .. ... . • • :a 18.11.07 .. t3 :: ]a. is gns:: .ha, a cial,: ::or":_uniqu +ii i_` to 'tional,-`:illpi iiinaticn a*Xi R:n Ali":;, � ►.. �`: ,.. .-., .z.. `� #�..;.: . , regulat `: n this 11(1. ti.ilboard: a. Billboa +d sign" regulations shall - 'b as • fo11o100. • (I)" s:Pereitted - (1) - Billboard;-signe. a .=p tt " " only"'in "a P ;=I-L-' f='I-H trial`-z'+0l1Nl >ii lld . Int rsta►t Freewaip so'. ; right- ,f- • . 2. -K1L d billboard { ,within Ofv Jos r - • of; # ",.0. ilic - aliatg=._ faits; • " D is on and all billboard sign(s}"° C--. - a tc vo fora. ritl ' alp Iicatil ir- requ-resents;:pertaining illboar , to��b 3. 2111 =' i p s.►. "tog i�c.: tls ";'all: "af their':: ,: braces', guyrR :>nad ;. " shall .bail;'k pt�� repair nd` all:ltie aaintafned:":fn`:a stir cored tion: n'. 7131.:;signs and 'the sita (4)9n.:.'tiit . E?ttiafir located shall x e ssi nta n+ n>.:at""neat; :clean arid'aitttactiyi cdition i; b:.. Signs<;shall.be ) eptt;.fpree 1**-2;: rust ther aorta ce co�r+iatwi � pisiiaq �.: ainit " =or" o °: t iiordt fang" . ;c.: :it"_.<d sp y :sort s:a=aof a11;" sign; °aha21_ . °'x! r atty painted :ox=posted > • =': 3.; except ate 'otheri ise =pra!iri d in,.::th s;.:s tian • , . . .. • . . • ,.—.....,,,,,,I,v;,„v rr;47.:4,T11.7.:‘,0,- : - -,,,w:•,...,..:,,,J;;.,,ii:;;.-,:‘,,,,,:34;*,<:,-,k'ic;<t,.....''.iy,.i;;;,.,e;;;,p<ef'q,':<:y;',::.,,!,,,i,'tt;!r,p<r-gMf',f<i-i4V,RT.K.t"Mt,,f,-Vr13iiin7 .,',C..'Pv:'..:,•,';'.y'.!„,..-:=:=-":< '''' •,'''-•!,' -1,-,i.,,,•:,,,..,•-k.c.i.:<,..V<, ...,:.<• 42...,,,;,....,-,...... , , • ,'.# • . '-'4`; , . ' •. . . • . . .. . .•• , < • .; :-, ' • _ •.....,,. , • , . ., , . • . . . • -. ., • ' • • . . . . . '.: ''Y. `iiiii -..iiliiiii,itilir: ,ist :','clonforat-'71:o -;.1:Iss--• - •- tiiiiiiiik ::iie:ifitiii:.:37iitii,,:cilli111',,i:bis?..,,:riag$1.42::::Iss i-ationtOrsing'-.4s4gns-,,-psid-,,,-- .h.0-:',.......-I'Y'-•,-,. , :-... - -•'' ...-- '' -,.... ' . s'riiiiiiiiiit ' . , Ili.1.ii.430' 'iiiiiaika;Iii41Agriaagallitiaga-• , . C. -:caviiiiikiiiil .70iiviiiii--- . ... ., ei-: -.. Billboard -Signs" '-','-:',;,:lii--,!',„'-'4..hii=-;<c."G-,. ;•-,',1*.00,11 ..;.:.., 3t: -_, • -- ,.•, • - ,, • I.-.. •:, -.,:: . „ : ,.. :,,:,..,-,- --,-„,.-- ---,,,„::,--- ---,,'.-1).9-4-3-!---A- ..fm,-, .:--4". •,; . : -.., . • , • '-- - iiiiiiiirt Aiiiiittle' iiithikitstiOn::1.8:114:.„ ,...- 1, ..-,- . :, ; . , . .,,. •,, ,.. ____.„„......., -,.. ,,,„,,,,,,,-„-:.-„,-,,,s,,,,,,,,,-.4-„,.---,.;:,:-.:::::.-4,,t:.•:-..-_!.::::::-.: :".„:„. , . ..„-.---.---.:; , - ,.-:. - - •-• . • ,. -- ,.. • ••:ZndUStri*iZOfls0 .- -, -,.:::,:::::::-.-..,--,-.•..-:,:,-,..i.;::::•;;::;".":„iffr', .':'',-...`;.1,;',..:i:-,,: ---;;:'.';'.,: '.:.;;,.',;,, -, ,-,-.---' i-,;f•,: : . '' ` --:=',- ';'-;-,7,..,-.',;:':5-':::,:-.:3,r,,.,,,:-. , - . . e.,-- , : - - --:'-=-_.. -_,=- ...,..-=iiitti--:-:-;,siiietiort.t:, ' .''(:'--.''111.11bdiard-53;giur 1-,..a.n,:-accoraan- f..:, . , . .„ -:i- -18:11-40 : „ ,, ,,„,„:,_, .... .., •:, ,.,,.,. . ,. , ..,,,.. , . : , ‘,,,„.,, , .A; • , - ---- , . • , . • . . , . • • _„ ". . :, • , . ,. : , ,„•,.• . • ; - : , -; - - : . , . • . ., . • , . . ,_ -.., . ., - ,,,.... _ : :•-,.:..z.,..,,-, ,.,;. ,„-,,-;:•,-,:-,;; ::‘,-.. :• . - - :: - :::.,;,.,... . .•,....';,:',7:::,,,,,-•''"--S." • ' • . • '.• - ', - ,.',.- z: - ..',',.;', -..,%;.-1' -■',. '.',:, ' . ;., -; -: '-:"...-,<•',,-..%' ,r,-,!-,,- -- '-'- . • . . , _ • ,-. .; ._ , . , • , . , . , . ......., -• - ,_ • ,,, , , ., ',....:, , . , '- ' ' '-• . ... , • . . , --,.: : , ,''':, ..; . ',..,.'4" , '---,,..',z,-;! .....,':','.•':-"-,- . '<:;,..-4.?• .,;.":'''--- .;• , :•''-Zi ...-'.l';7:-v''' '.. .- ,''..5.; f 1. . ::, ' , . - ' -. ,:-.. ..,'''.',''--:' :'' -.': :. ''--'•-•,':'>';',''''')',.'T:" '' :' .' : : ':'''-';''''. . : : * .' 1-.:J; , -%,• . . ,.., .. ., . , . . . . . ' ! • : '. 1 ''[ . , . • . t . , . ' • . . . - . • . . . ' • , : 1 . . . . . •.,„ . . • -„,. ' . ' - -,..-, . . 4, —...' ' -. • • . : ..- . ., ,,,.' -.'. • , - 1 , . .. , • : •...1, - . ,. -. •':. • ' • , ...,, , , . -< .- • . . . . . •". •<,:-... ; „-`,,,. ' . : ' . .- , , .. , •, :<,c ,., • -.;„ _s: .. • ' •"- .„-.-..:-.. . : • , • „-' • • . . , . . .. .. . • . . ... - . . -,, .• . . . ... .,,., • • , ...., - . • . „ ,,,..„ , . . . ' • • • , .< . . . , c'''''`t011,1' '''. - --- -.,' - C.1,..,'''''''.:k.;`,1-v: 1:,..17Z;. tr'fta ''''''''''•;',..'''.<!Ft'."'t''-7- - : '.....",,,,,,..4 4, ',,----- --, -..., -.-''• ' -...-... ,...,:,,,,,-• , : ,,,.:,.. , . ,, . • • CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Members of the Tigard City Council FROM: Brad Kilby, Associate Planner DATE: May 30, 2003 SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director's Interpretation regarding"Billboard" in the TMC Chapter 18.780 A second appeal has been filed in the matter that will come before you on June 10, 2003. The • appeal was filed by Michelle Rudd, an attorney representing Media Arts, Inc. on their behalf. In a conversation with Mrs. Rudd this afternoon she agreed to have the Media Arts appeal heard at the same time as the appeal filed by the Tigard City Manager. Media Arts, Inc. has appealed the Community Development Director's interpretation on the basis of the following statement. "Disagreement with interpretation of sign ordinance issued by Community Development Director; Director's interpretation of the sign code is unconstitutional, violating State and Federal constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech,privileges and immunities and due process; Director's interpretation violates 42 USC§ 1983; City Manager does not have standing to appeal; other constitutional and procedural issues to be identified at hearing." The staff recommendation remains the same. Staff review of the pertinent materials that are part of your record, indicates that the intent was to expressly prohibit billboards within the Tigard City limits, and concurs with the Community Development Director's Interpretation. Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the Director's Interpretation. • • • APPEAL FILING FORM ``�,�:.,,, , ,;'.._ . FOR..LAND USE DECISIONS - CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd_, Tigard. OR 97223(503)639-4.171 FAX(503)684-7297 2.44 .K,( • • •• The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate In local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore,sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions: • The following form has been developed to assist you In filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the.appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. • • GENERAL INFORMATION. FOR STAFF•USE ONLY ' " Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the CaseNo.(s): XI 5 Zoe 3 -Oob•A- - Application Being Appealed: Director's Interpretation Case Name(s): . Regarding Billboard TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC Receipt No.: v��3 2-'a- '�- 18.870.070M, TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC 18.780.090E6 : How Do You Qualify As A Party?:. Media Art, through its :attorney requested a copy of the Director's Application Accepted By: p Interpretation and has standing under 18.340.020 D • pate: r and E. . Approved As To Form By: _ • .Appellant's Address:. Media Art c/o Michelle 'Rudd, Stoel Date: Rives, '900 SW 5th Avenue, S tt!' 2600 City/State: Portland, OR •P' 97204 Denied As To Form By: Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached: (503) 294-9390 Date: Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: May 16, 2003 Rey.rsa'9 O2 rrwm���m�s�vrsee�ac�r.dOc Data Notice of Final Decision Was Given: May 28, 2003 _ _ Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS Disagreement with interpretation of-sign ordinance Application Elements Submitted: issued by Community Development Director; Director's interpretation of the sign code is unconstitutional, - j g Appeal Filing Form(completed) -• violating State and Federal constitutional guarantees Filing Fee(based on criteria below) of freedom of speech, privileges and immunities and s o�reao reDedc�ontoPtamtnpComndision 5 250.00 due process; Director's interpretation violates (> a� BMIO s aoo.00 42 USC § 1983; City Manager does not have standing ;> p Hearing Ralarse i�gConvnlssroNHearng'soa',rarto yCoors I SIT/m 500.00 ca . to appeal; other constitutional and procedural issues i•Tnnsmpq to be identified at the hearing. . Signature(s) of Appe lant(s): Media Art's mailing address is: /►,� - ..I 'L'_ «.•�F 1923 Broadway Street Vancouver, WA 98663 Michelle Rudd, Stoel Rives. LLP on behalf of Media Art • •-••-----•--•- (OVER FOR ADOn1ONAL WRMTCNG SPACE! .,� • • s. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. CITY OF TIGARD Community(Development Shaping A'Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL,AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003-00021 FILE TITLE: APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS APPELLANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The City Council will review an appeal of the Community Development Director's interpretation of Sections 18.780.015, 18.780.070, and 18.780.090 of the Tigard Development Code. The appeal is specific to the language regarding billboards and freeway-oriented signs. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.340 and 18.390. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM STAFF, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). • • h . , INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE REQUEST, ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (250 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (250 PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER BRAD KILBY AT(503)639-4171,TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. • West Coast Media, LLC Attn: Chris Carlile I:\curpin\setup\labels\billboard interpretation appeal for 6-10-03 CC 4888 NW Bethany Blvd., Suite K-5 #354 public hearing.doc Portland, OR 97229 Media Art, Inc. Attn: John Fitzmaurice 1923 Broadway Street Vancouver, WA 98663 Steven W. Abel, Timothy L. McMahan and Michelle Rudd Stoel Rives, LLP 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204-1268 Brian D. Chenoweth Rycewicz & Chenoweth, LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1940 Portland, OR 97204-3154 • • 0 U.S. Postal ServiceTM "" CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT ,..0 (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) • For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.corna Q 1 .mil Pos rn ,Certified Fee 1 C \t O -� �O Return Reclepf Postmark (Endorserirrif Required) Here O RestrictedIDeii ry.Fee /J:: r-1 (Endorsement Requied)t e-?;" S 's d1 }� ru Total Postage&Fees Blinall • ru p Sent To ' o Brian.D. Chenoweth f`• ti Apt.No.; Rycewicz&Chenoweth, LLP or PO Box No. 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1940••., City,State,Z/Pt4 Portland. OR 97204-3154 _ _ PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions ' SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ❑Agent 111 Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. ti r%. V� L D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No Brian D. Chenoweth Rycewicz&Chenoweth, LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1940 3.���S,,,e///,,vi""ce Type is Portland, 0R 797204-3154 rtified Mail 0 Express Mail Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 7002 2410 0003 7046 0675 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 I I„'II'1I�I"19'ti`("((4(4tf{4{l+� n J. 6ZZL6 2:0 `PUell-lod 490")1 OT!nS '.pn18 i(ueyja8 MN 99917 el!lae0 s!i40 :u}ly 011 'e!paW Tseo0 Asa, i �! EDVISOd'S11 u9a 66S fr /t g ap 'd ✓OZZ), OZ�6 2!q at-tk±s11.dc1d. ac'2d 4 2f3 cso • E000 DTh2 2002. 1 W 71 dW O.3IJl1H33 3NI1 031100 1V 0101'3S3tl00V NUfISH 3141 AO 114051 3H1013dO13AN3 d0 dOl 1V tl3)I311S 33Vld SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: West-Co' t Media, LLC Attn: Ch"risCarlile 4888 NW Bethany Blvd., Suite K-5#354 Portland, OR 97229 6uluueld tuaaan° :u;lv £6L6 uo6eiO'1:10611 .pnie IPH 'M'S 9Z LC a21VJI1 AO A1IO COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X B. Received by(Printed Name) ❑Agent ❑Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type Certified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service babe° ,PS Form 3811,August 2001 7002 2410 0003 7046 0699 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE,LIENHOLDER,VENDOR OR SELLER: THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT SHALL BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. ,n An CITY OF TIGARD Community Deve(opment Shaping Better Community PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT A MEETING ON TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2003 AT 7:30 PM, IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE TIGARD CIVIC CENTER, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: FILE NO.: MISCELLANEOUS (MIS) 2003-00021 FILE TITLE: APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARD SIGNS APPELLANT: City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: The City Council will review an appeal of the Community Development Director's interpretation of Sections 18.780.015, 18.780.070, and 18.780.090 of the Tigard Development Code. The appeal is specific to the language regarding billboards and freeway-oriented signs. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.340 and 18.390. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF CHAPTER 18.390 OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL. ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONS WITH IMPAIRED HEARING. THE CITY WILL ALSO ENDEAVOR TO ARRANGE FOR QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND QUALIFIED BILINGUAL INTERPRETERS UPON REQUEST. PLEASE CALL (503) 639-4171, EXT. 2438 (VOICE) OR (503) 684-2772 (TDD - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF) NO LESS THAN ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE HEARING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. ANYONE WISHING TO PRESENT WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON THIS PROPOSED ACTION MAY DO SO IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. ORAL TESTIMONY MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE A STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION FROM STAFF, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND INVITE BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER MEETING TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION. IF A PERSON SUBMITS EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY MAY ALLOW A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING, SUBJECT TO ORS 215.428 OR 227.178. IF THERE IS NO CONTINUANCE GRANTED AT THE HEARING, ANY PARTICIPANT IN THE HEARING MAY REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN FOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7)DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. A REQUEST THAT THE RECORD REMAIN OPEN CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING (ORS 197.763(6). INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE IS A LIST OF APPROVAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE REQUEST FROM THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA LISTED OR OTHER CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH THE PERSON BELIEVES TO APPLY TO THE DECISION. AT THE HEARING IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COMMENTS RELATING TO THE REQUEST PERTAIN SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. FAILURE TO RAISE AN ISSUE IN PERSON OR BY LETTER AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THE. REQUEST, ACCOMPANIED BY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE HEARINGS AUTHORITY AND ALL PARTIES TO RESPOND PRECLUDES AN APPEAL, AND FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE CRITERION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT WHICH A COMMENT IS DIRECTED PRECLUDES AN APPEAL TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS BASED ON THAT ISSUE. ALL DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA IN THE ABOVE-NOTED FILE ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST OR COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (254) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING, A COPY OF THE STAFF REPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT NO COST, •OR A COPY CAN BE OBTAINED FOR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS (254) PER PAGE, OR THE CURRENT RATE CHARGED FOR COPIES AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE STAFF PLANNER BRAD KILBY AT(503)639-4171, TIGARD CITY HALL, 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223. 1110 1110 • U.S. Postal Service,. Er CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT ..n (Domestic Mail Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided) 0 For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come OFFOCI A L USE r` Po`s✓tag EOM 0 eerilfl¢d "NM f/•"'F Postmark Return Roc ept Fee Here (Endorsement Required O Restricted Delivery . r—1 (Endorsement Required) ru IT' Total Postage&Fees • rzi Sent To West Coast Media, LLC r Street,Apt.No.; Attn: Chris Carlile or PO Box No. 4888 NW Bethany Blvd., Suite K-5 #354 City,srera,ziP+a• Portland, OR 97229. PS Form 3800,June 2002 See Reverse for Instructions 1 g9MMUNITY NEWSPAPERS • _ • vit0 2, ' P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503)684-0360 Legal . . Notice TT 10242 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 ..: Legal , , •. . „ •. . , .. • . ' ','CITY:OVTIGARD,,, i .. .. ity of Tigard , • ', /:, .,...::f...'- • 131255W Hall Blvd. , ,.,14.4.,"-;4111; , - .: .. OREGOKilik.1‘,'' ',; .:;:,1,'',.:;; • igard,Oregon 97223 - ' I. • ; :,......,::,,,.,-.::: 9-..-6,,:,:,:.;.. .:,; ,;tr Accounts Payable The',ftilteWing,Will:',be.;?colisidered bSi.--:#ie3"ig44-'city,...:COuri4on ' • TugaiiAiiileit0i160..i&ifi)(Y,01:-.at,*gii4ki5tike"Center „,,,, Te,4ii,'Halt:;;Ii3$23;;S*4-taWBiVdr;:j-taia;:','pregbiO'Ontli,iimblib'*1.',;'7i :. . -...aaii5viileitAstimony,:arp,:iinyite,iginie;,'Atibcihearing on thismattef .”' v,i113,4S'airiaiifea(44,',#040,41i!■''00:it 19.4: r14proceckqesfoft,,i, • Gityig*OsrofOrt661:09,04.49.0.1444F1?:§0t*Ped.fro013r4.drjPY.4,1 AFFIDAVIT OF -[all Tig4rd; 01:0,4Orikl STATE OF OREGON, ) f97223„,,,!pr,lby,,..,eolipg.,50303241.7,18Alei-vi,,,,,,:re,;,,,..v,',..,, ss. c,-,,R ,EA;RINgdmot,, 6:,,,.',-. .,,mr.0 .:if.., COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) ,.,:,,,,,,,,,,,p,pupEi •p • • f ?",;APPEAPOWATOMPIORF,;$W,T,BPRETATION: 1, Kathy Snyder ,M,C04X40...................... < being first duly sworn, depose and say that:,th .t.:c4,,,,,;.',04f0p*,1*(0..-Agaihapfie.a1. :Of the ,(.omniubity`;;ii Director, or his principal clerk, of the Ti ga 3,115ev'eforifeopliedjoilkiiitiiipte, tati4Ops.44an 18.780.09a,of tho:i5 a newspaper of general circulation as befii,:tiga'id,:pa81;i4ritica0e'i!‘"ATAif:aii'p'ear,,ii406pifib to the 141104gqY::.1 . . and 193.020; published at T.j gard : '.ieg&iaiiiiSitlhai:idiiiiiiiifie0arnienteiii4griS:' , :•• . .; ?;,J . - aforesaid county and state; that the Pub:".1714024V-40iitiliif4441Vii-431Ti.j.KAV: ' ' ,- .'•'.1” Appeal of Billboard Signs Ii : '.-:.•; . , ?...i.,:', ..,L..,,..J.4 ,, ,-;,,,,.: , . . .,.. . ,,,,,, • a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the , entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and . consecutive in the following issues: May 22 , 2003 ,0 . i I ,:k • Air Le: __Ailai : . A !A • Subscribed and sworn to A, ore me this 22n1 clay nf may,, 2003 0 3 &&) 6 . 6 . .,....,., . ...... ....._ OFFICIAL SEAL ' .• •;-7,. :.3.0i:gl ROBIN A BURGESS Nota ublic for Oregon :::;,-,, :::1'1,:i ' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON !?., COMMISSION NO.344589 41 My Commission Expires: I MY COMMISSION / ( . . ..... AFFIDAVIT ._ . .. . . . . . . _ .. • . . • •. - ..: • . . .: • • 4 ... . • • • APPEALED TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) SEE LUBA FILE NOS. 2003-068/069, 084, 085 & 112 j • • APPEAL FILING FORM G"M'"' . .4'..1i`� FOR LAND USE DECISIONS CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503) 639-4171 FAX:(503) 684-7297 The City of Tigard supports the citizen's right to participate in local government. Tigard's Land Use Code, therefore, sets out specific requirements for filing appeals on certain land use decisions. The following form has been developed to assist you in filing an appeal of a land use decision in proper form. To determine what filing fees will be required or to answer any questions you have regarding the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division or the City Recorder at the phone/fax listed at the top of this form. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Property Address/Location(s) and Name(s) of the Case No.(s): MIS 1nn�� W� ' 060-)1 Application Being Appealed: LO gv'> m o A't-t-Lt 'S.)EA C L-oclrne nr Case Name(s): Drecirnec 1 e rA'aki I r1 c .irzer-coR_'S, 114ecTee‘..o k; c),J DC -TOC Seck.so'' "D Receipt No.: I-01oaCe relcr4ei AO Per4•4in ..ol 40 S3;tiRoctras How Do You Qualify As A Party?: g..(1bOCrd SicAIs- C;1/2.ti IV\q r FG ER_ Application Accepted By: Qm� Date: tilq,i t(n1D.003 Approved As To Form By: Appellant's Address: 13laS 5\.,). Irk aLt_ %\v n, Date: - City/State: l ;e-A e-b 1 OR Zip: cVb.)_3 Denied As To Form By: Day Phone Where You Can Be Reached:(563) (fl 9 "9t>l k Date: Scheduled Date Decision Is To Be Final: fYIAtI 16 1 aloB Rev.15-Aug-02 i:\curpin\masters\revised\appeal.doc Date Notice of Final Decision Was Given: ArctginatiLialn Specific Grounds For Appeal or Review: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS SEEk. Covr\ctE RC_ \;:lL-',‘J cor. b eEi C- i _ ✓i Application Elements Submitted: S Appeal Filing Form (completed) ❑ Filing Fee(based on criteria below) > Director's Decision to Planning Commission $ 250.00 > Expedited Review(deposit) $ 300.00 > Hearing Referee $ 500.00 > Planning CommissionlHearing's Officer to City Council $1,790.00 (+Transcript) Signatures) of Appellant(s): WILLIAM A. MONAHAN APPEAL FILING FORM FOR LAND USE DECISIONS (OVER FOR ADDITIONAL WRITING SPACE) • • DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING BILLBOARDS TMC 18.780.015.A.8 and .9, TMC 18.870.070.M TMC 18.780.090.E.1 and TMC 18.780.090.E.6 I. INTRODUCTION This interpretation is intended to clarify certain provisions of the Community Development Code regarding signs. II. INTERPRETATIONS A. TMC 18.780.015.A.8, 18.780.015.A.9 and 18.780.070.M Code Language TMC 18.780.015.A.8: "Billboard" means a sign face supported by a billboard structure. TMC 18.780.015.A.9: "Billboard structure" means the structural face which supports a billboard. TMC 18.780.070.M: "Billboards. Billboards are prohibited." Interpretation As applied to freeway-oriented signs, a billboard is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway-oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Discussion The two definitions (of"billboard" and "billboard structure") are circular and provide little guidance as to what constitutes a billboard or a billboard structure. Dictionary definitions are not very helpful. For example, the most relevant definition in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is "a large panel designed to carry outdoor advertising." This definition does not provide much detail but is in accord with the common conception of a billboard as a very large sign. TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits billboards. Before billboards were prohibited, they were allowed only in certain zones and only if within 660 feet of Highway 217 or Interstate 5. (See Ordinance 93-12, Exhibit A). However, it is clear that when the Council prohibited billboards, it did not prohibit all freeway-oriented signs because freestanding freeway oriented signs are expressly permitted, subject to certain standards. TMC 18.780.090.E. Given the dictionary definition and common understanding of billboard as a very large sign and that the Council's obvious intent as to freeway-oriented signs was to prohibit certain signs while allowing others, it appears that the Council intended the term "billboard" in the context of freeway oriented signs to mean a sign that is larger than the maximum size allowed for a freeway-oriented sign. The normal maximum area for a freeway-oriented sign is 160 square feet per sign face and 320 square feet for a two-sided sign. TMC 18.780.090.E.6. However, provided an application can meet all of the applicable review criteria for an adjustment, the code allows adjustments of up to 25 percent in sign area. TMC 18.780.140.A, TMC 18.370.020.C.6. Therefore, a freeway-oriented sign that does not exceed 200 square feet per side and 400 square feet total may be approved through the adjustment process and would not be a billboard. In the context of freeway-oriented signs, a billboard therefore is a sign with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet. As applied to freeway- oriented signs, TMC 18.780.070.M prohibits signs with any one sign face greater than 200 square feet or with a total sign area greater than 400 square feet Page 1 of 4 A. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 Code Language TMC 18.780.090.E.1: Anyone who qualifies for a permit from the State of Oregon under the provisions of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) need not seek separate approval from the City of Tigard. Interpretation The "separate approval" provision of TMC 18.780.090.E.1 distinguishes the City's sign permit process set out in Tigard Municipal Code Chapter 18 from the state permitting process, which includes a requirement to obtain an affidavit from the City. ORS 337.723. A person qualifies for an OMIA permit only if that person has obtained an affidavit from the City that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations and the state determines that the other OMIA standards are satisfied. If a person has not obtained an ORS 337.723 affidavit that the City standards have been met, the person has not "qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." To demonstrate that a person has qualified for an OMIA permit, the person must provide evidence the OMIA permit has been issued. This section does not exempt a person from obtaining building permits, only from obtaining the sign permit required under Chapter 18.780. Under the building code, the building official is to deny permits for failure to meet building code standards or other applicable laws and ordinances. The City's prohibition on billboards is an applicable law or ordinance preventing issuance of building permits for billboards. Discussion This provision is ambiguous because it does not clearly define what "qualifying for a permit" means. The provision could be interpreted to mean that the City should make an independent evaluation in each case whether a person meets all the qualifications for a permit from the State under the Oregon Motorist Information Act. This interpretation is unacceptable and unreasonable because it would have the City make an independent evaluation of a decision that only the Oregon Department of Transportation has authority to make. See ORS 377.725. That interpretation could result in an avoidance of the City process in cases in which the state denies the OMIA permit. This is clearly not what the Council intended in passing this provision. It could also be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to seek separate City approval if the person has obtained an OMIA permit for a location in the City. This is a reasonable and acceptable interpretation of the code provision. TMC 18.780.090.E.1 must be read in context of the OMIA. A person can qualify for an OMIA permit only if that person obtains an affidavit from the City that the sign is permitted under the City codes. ORS 337.723. The provision that a person need not obtain a "separate approval" from the City makes sense when interpreted in light of the provision in ORS 337.723, which includes the City as part of the OMIA process. If the City issues an affidavit certifying compliance under ORS 337.723, it will have verified that the applicant meets City standards, and a second City process would be superfluous. However, if no affidavit certifying compliance is issued, then the City would not have determined whether its code has been complied with and a separate City process is needed. The intent of the provision is to avoid two separate City processes for a single sign, while requiring at least one City process to determine whether a sign complies with City standards. Therefore, TMC 18.780.090.E.1 should be interpreted as meaning that a person may avoid obtaining a City permit (the "separate approval") if the person has obtained an affidavit from the City under ORS 337.723 stating that the proposed sign complies with all applicable City regulations. If a person has not obtained the ORS 337.723 affidavit indicating compliance, the person has not "qualifie[d] for a permit from the State of Oregon under the Oregon Motorist Information Act." If a person does obtain an affidavit from the City verifying compliance, the person could proceed with the billboard construction only if the person satisfies the state that all other OMIA permit requirements are met. The only way for the City to determine compliance with other OMIA standards is by verifying whether an OMIA permit has been issued. A person seeking to avoid the City permit process must provide evidence that the OMIA permit has been issued. Page 2 of 4 • • If a person has received an OMIA permit for another location, the person has not qualified for a permit for an OMIA permit for a location in the City until the person either obtains a City permit or an affidavit of compliance from the City under ORS 337.723. Furthermore, the only exemption provided for by this section is an exemption from the City's sign permit requirements in Chapter 18.780. A building permit, if otherwise required, still must be obtained. TMC 18.780.010.E.1 is in the context of the sign permit regulations in the Community Development Code. It is clear from the context that the "separate approval" refers to a sign permit, not a building permit. Indeed, the City does not have authority to state that a building permit is not required if state law requires a building permit, which it does for most sign structures. The building official cannot approve a building permit unless the application conforms to the requirements of the building code "and other pertinent laws or ordinances." OSSC (UBC) 106.4.1. The prohibition on billboards imposed by TMC 18.780.010.E.1 discussed in this interpretation is a "pertinent law" that prevents the issuance of a building permit for billboards. C. TMC 18.780.090.E.6 Code Provision TMC 18.780.090.E.6: For freestanding signs, a total maximum sign area of 160 square feet per fact (320 square feet total) shall be allowed. If the sign is a billboard, then the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090 shall apply. Interpretation The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is interpreted to mean that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above) are not permitted. Discussion The first sentence of this section is clear and unambiguous. The second sentence is confusing and ambiguous. That sentence states that if a sign is a billboard, the provisions of subsection 18.780.090 apply. This statement is ambiguous for two reasons. Most importantly, any reference to standards being applicable to billboards is confusing, given the express prohibitions on billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. Second, there may be some possible ambiguity as to whether the "provisions of Subsection 18.780.090" includes the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. Dealing with the second possible area of ambiguity, the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 is one of the provisions of Subsection 18.780.090. There is no language in the second sentence that would exclude the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 from being applicable. It would have been easy to include an express provision stating that the first sentence did not apply to billboards, or to add the word "but" between the two sentences. The Council in adopting the provision did not do that. To interpret the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090E.6 in a way that would make the first sentence not applicable to billboards would be to insert a provision that is not there. The second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 should therefore be interpreted as making the size limitation of the first sentence of that subsection applicable to billboards. In interpreting this provision, it should be noted that the code definition of billboard -a sign supported by a billboard structure- applies to this provision. The apparent intent was therefore that any sign that had a billboard structure could not exceed the other requirements of freeway-oriented signs, including the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6. The best interpretation of the second sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E is therefore that signs with billboard structures that are greater than the maximum allowed by the first sentence of TMC 18.780.090.E.6 (plus any adjustments allowed by code as discussed above), are not permitted. Page 3 of 4 . • • This interpretation also resolves the possible inconsistency with prohibition on all billboards in TMC 18.780.070.M. As properly interpreted, TMC 18.780.090.E.6 prohibits all signs greater than a certain size, including those that are supported by a billboard structure. Given the interpretation of"billboard" discussed in Section A above, the structure of a smaller sign would not be a "billboard structure" because it would be for a sign that is smaller than a billboard and the prohibition on billboards would not apply. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between TMC 18.780.090.E.6 and TMC 18.780.070.M because TMC 18.780.090.E.6 does not allow any billboards prohibited by TMC 18.780.070.M. III. APPLICATION OF THIS INTERPRETATION This interpretation applies in all situations in which the code sections discussed in this interpretation are applicable. Because this is an interpretation and not a regulation, it is to be applied by all City staff in all situations, even as to applications that have been filed. , IV. FINALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS This decision is final and effective upon mailing. It may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to TMC 18.340.020.E and F. i_4410/1 L /_ ames .P. He •ryx, Community'• : .opment Director DATE: 0 5//6/0 3 • Page 4 of 4 0000 0JQ0: 0017d . 1 .. • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 93- la t AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.114.070 TO ADD SUBSECTION N. TO PROHIBIT BILLBOARDS AND TO REPEAL SECTION 18.114.090 A. SUBSECTIONS 1-4 WHICH PROVIDES FOR BILLBOARDS. WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds it necessary to revise the Community Development Code periodically to improve the operation and implementation of the Code; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard Planning Commission reviewed the staff recommendation at a public hearing on March 8, 1993 and voted to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that the amendment does not affect f City Comprehensive Plan Goals or State Planning Goals; and F$ WHEREAS, The City of Tigard finds that there has been a public outcry concerning the proliferation, number, spacing and aesthetics of billboards; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on April 13, 1993 to consider the amendment. THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Community Development Code shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "AM. Language to be added in UNDERLINED. Language to be deleted is shown in (BRACEETS]. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By YY' Ct_j Or i 19 vote of all Council members present afar be read by number and title only, this of Gt?2t4 , 1993. Ca erine Wheatley, City order APPROVED: This ! l h day o A/i` , 199 . . rfAIV e-7 d r":"':dw= '= , Mayor Approved s to form: City Attorney r.1• 11, { Date ��11 ORDINANCE No. 93- Q. Page 1 • 1 r� r-►r1 1-7 11 ,r r'i U 4 _ U Li-Lr U LI LI-- o _ _ ( EXHIBIT «A" 18114.070 Certain Signs Prohib to Hs BILUNHLtdE Billboards are Prohibited. 8 ,14.0 O Snesi!it on sigma A. Special condition signs shall have special or unique dimensional, locational, illumination, maximum number or /rCher requirements imposed upon them in addition to the egulations contained in this chapter. (1. Billboard: a. Billboard sign regulations shall be as follows: (i) Bones Permitted: (1) Billboard signs shall be permitted only in a C-G commercial zone or I- C- P, I-L and I-H industrial zones and then only within 660 feet of Oregon State Expressway No. 217 and/or Interstate Freeway No. 5 rightrof- ways; 2. All new proposed billboard sign(s) within 660 feet z of the public right-of-fray of a state highway must obtain the necessary permit(s) from the State Highway Division and all billboard signs) must be maintained to conform with applicable state requirements pertaining to billboards; ri 3. All signs, together with all of their supports, braces, guys, and anchors shall be kept in good repair and shall be maintained in a safe condition: a. All signs and the site upon which they are located shall be maintained in a neat, clean, t and attractive condition; b. Signs shall be kept free from excessive rust, corrosion, peeling paint, or other surface deterioration; and c. The display surfaces of all signs shall be kept neatly painted or posted; 4. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, LJ L i Li y_1._._._..:L�1 Li_U .J U . _ U f = v f existing billboards which do not conform to the provisions of this title shall be regarded as nonconforming signs and shall be subject to the provisions of Subsection 18,114,110.] 18.114.130 Zoninv District Regulations C. Commericial Zones: 1. [f. Billboard Signs in the C-G cone only in accordance with Section 18.114.090.A;] F. Industrial Zones: -1. [e. Billboard Signs in accordance with Section 18.114.090.A;] c (. 05/28/2003 10:38 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard lj001 • S ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 1591 CONNECTION TEL 5032202480 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 05/28 10:34 USAGE T 04'01 PGS. SENT 16 RESULT OK Planning Division 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 ///ii�il;lll S �I neron .11.111A CITY OF TIGARD Fax To: Lincoln From: Brad Kilby,Associate Planner Fax: 503-220-2480 Pages: 16 including coversheet Phone: 503-294-9530 Date: 5/28/03 Re: Director's Interpretation and appeal Info. CC: n/a ❑Urgent ® For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑Please Reply ®Please Recycle • Comments: Per your request. If you do not receive all 16 pages,contact me at(503)639-4171 ext.2434 • •